Diamantopoulos v. State of Nebraska

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1 ) is dismissed without prejudice to reassertion of a subsequent petition upon certification by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. All pending motions are denied as moot. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
GEORGOS DIAMANTOPOULOS,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:11CV431

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion.

Petitioner Georgos

Diamantopoulos (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on
December 13, 2011. (Filing No. 1.) This is Petitioner’s ninth 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this court relating to the same conviction and
sentence.1 Recently, on February 14, 2012, this court dismissed Petitioner’s eighth
§ 2254 petition as successive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A). (Case No.
8:11cv406, Filing No. 8.)

1

See Diamantopoulos v. Nebraska, et al., 8:11cv406 (Urbom, J.) (dismissing
Petitioner’s eighth § 2254 petition on February 14, 2012, as successive pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A); Diamantopoulos v. Venditte et al., 4:10cv3079 (Smith
Camp, J.) (dismissing Petitioner’s seventh § 2254 petition on June 2, 2010, as
successive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A)); Diamantopoulos v. Nebraska,
4:07cv3191 (Strom, J.) (dismissing Petitioner’s sixth § 2254 petition on December
10, 2007, as a successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A));
Diamantopoulos v. Clarke, 4:01cv3287 (Kopf, J.) (dismissing Petitioner’s fifth §
2254 petition on September 3, 2002, as a successive pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2244(b)(3)(A)); Diamantopoulos v. Nebraska Dep’t of Corr., et al., 4:98cv3262
(Urbom, J.) (dismissing Petitioner’s fourth § 2254 petition on October 14, 1998, as
a successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)); Rehbein v. Clarke,
94 F.3d 478 (8th Cir. 1996), aff’g 855 F. Supp. 1066 (D. Neb. 1994) (affirming
dismissal of Petitioner’s third petition for writ of habeas corpus under principles
concerning “abuse of the writ” before enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)).

The court has carefully reviewed the record in this matter and in Petitioner’s
previous habeas corpus proceedings. For the reasons set forth in the court’s February
14, 2012, Memorandum and Order in Case Number 8:11CV406 (Filing No. 8), the
court finds that this Petition is clearly successive and must be dismissed. That is,
Petitioner’s previous petitions raise claims and argument similar to those raised here,
and Petitioner does not raise any new arguments or allege any new facts that
demonstrate that he is innocent of the underlying offense. Further, Petitioner does not
assert, nor does the record show, that he sought or received permission from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to file a successive petition.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1) is dismissed

without prejudice to reassertion of a subsequent petition upon certification by the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance
with this Memorandum and Order.
2.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DATED this 22 nd day of February, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.