From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morris v. Norman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Jan 14, 2013
No. 4:12-CV-2065-FRB (E.D. Mo. Jan. 14, 2013)

Opinion

No. 4:12-CV-2065-FRB

01-14-2013

ANTHONY C. MORRIS, Petitioner, v. JEFF NORMAN, Respondent.


OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the application of Anthony C. Morris for leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee [Doc. #3]. Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the application, the Court finds that petitioner is financially unable to pay any portion of the filing fee, and therefore, his motion will be granted.

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is challenging the constitutionality of his April 24, 1981 capital murder conviction in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Petitioner states that he previously brought a § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1981 conviction, and that he was denied relief, both in the district court and on appeal. See Morris v. Delo, No. 4:90-CV-643(C)(1) (E.D. Mo.). Petitioner states that he later filed an application for permission to file a second or successive habeas petition, but his application was denied.

The Court notes that petitioner filed this action as a "Petition to Re-Open Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus under Federal Rule 60(b)(6)." The Court has liberally construed the petition as a new habeas action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides that "[b]efore a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." There is no indication that the Court of Appeals has certified the instant habeas application as required by § 2244(b)(3)(A), and thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction, and the action will be summarily dismissed without prejudice. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no order to show cause shall issue as to the respondent,because the instant petition is successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing [Doc. #2] is DENIED as moot.

A separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.

____________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Morris v. Norman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Jan 14, 2013
No. 4:12-CV-2065-FRB (E.D. Mo. Jan. 14, 2013)
Case details for

Morris v. Norman

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY C. MORRIS, Petitioner, v. JEFF NORMAN, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jan 14, 2013

Citations

No. 4:12-CV-2065-FRB (E.D. Mo. Jan. 14, 2013)