Sandles v. United States of America

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Rudolph T Randa on May 1, 2006. (cc: via US Mail to John Eric Sandles)(Randa, Rudolph)

Download PDF
Sandles v. United States of America Doc. 2 Case 2:06-cv-00536-RTR Filed 05/01/2006 Page 1 of 2 Document 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P l a i n t i f f, v. C a se No. 92-CR-113 06-C-536 J O H N ERIC SANDLES, Movant. DECISION AND ORDER O n May 7, 2003, the Court received the "Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis" f iled by the movant John Eric Sandles ("Sandles"). In that motion, Sandles claims that this C o u rt lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment against him. Despite the caption on Sandles's f ilin g , it substantively comes within the purview of 28 U.S.C. 2255. See United States v. L lo y d , 398 F.3d 978, 980 (7th Cir. 2005). Sandles is attacking his underlying conviction and im p ri s o n m e n t. This is not Sandles's first Section 2255 motion; he has previously filed multiple such m o tio n s . Insofar as Sandles's motion is a successive motion within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2244 & 2255, and, insofar as Sandles has not obtained authorization from the Court of A p p e a ls to file a successive motion, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the substance o f his arguments. Case 2:06-cv-00536-RTR Filed 05/01/2006 Page 2 of 2 Document 2 N O W , THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY O R D E R E D THAT: T h e Clerk of Court SHALL open a separate case number for Sandles's motion, herein re c h a ra c te riz e d as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. Sandles's Motion is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The clerk of court SHALL enter judgment accordingly. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 1st day of May, 2006. BY THE COURT s / Rudolph T. Randa Hon. Rudolph T. Randa C h ie f Judge 2

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?