Ivey v. United States of America
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DOCKET § 2255 MOTION IN CASE NO. 16-1303 AS A SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN CASE NO. 16-1008 AND TO CLOSE DUPLICATE CASE NO. 16-1303. Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 1/18/17. (Todd, James)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
DENNIS JOEL IVEY,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DOCKET § 2255 MOTION IN CASE NO. 16-1303
AS A SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN CASE NO. 16-1008 AND
TO CLOSE DUPLICATE CASE NO. 16-1303
On January 13, 2016, Movant Dennis Joel Ivey, acting pro se, filed a motion for leave
to file a successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The document was construed as
a § 2255 motion and opened as case number 16-1008. Ivey sought to challenge his sentence
pursuant to the decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). On June 23,
2016, the Court transferred the § 2255 motion to the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3). The Court of Appeals subsequently granted leave to file the motion and
remanded for further proceedings. See In re Ivey, No. 16-6052 (6th Cir. Oct. 27, 2016).
On November 25, 2016, Ivey filed another § 2255 motion, which was opened as case
number 16-1303. In that motion, Ivey contends that his sentence is invalid under both
Johnson and the later decision in Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016).
It appears the § 2255 motion opened as case number 16-1303 should have been
docketed as a supplemental motion in the prior proceeding rather than as a separate case.
Therefore, the Clerk is DIRECTED to docket the § 2255 motion in case number 16-1303 as
a supplemental § 2255 motion in case number 16-1008. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to
close duplicate case number 16-1303.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?