Opinion
97-3144.
December 16, 2005
OPINION
The Court now considers Petitioner Michael Nietupski's second petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
FACTS ANALYSIS
On December 16, 2005, the Court received a letter from Michael Nietupski. Mr. Nietupski asked the Court to consider his letter a motion for relief pursuant to United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___ 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He also asked the Court to appoint him counsel because he is not "smart enough" to file one pro se.
Although Mr. Nietupski claims he is not intelligent enough to file a pro se motion, the docket sheet for this case shows that he previously filed an unsuccessful pro se petition on May 2, 1997. This shows that Mr. Nietupski is capable enough to file a pro se motion. More importantly, however, Mr. Nietupski cannot file the instant motion on account of his earlier filing. Section 2255 bars individuals from filing second or successive habeas petitions unless the motion is certified in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals. The instant motion is essentially a habeas petition, and the Clerk of the Court will docket it as a Second Petition for Habeas Corpus. Because Mr. Nietupski's second petition has not been appropriately certified, the Court cannot consider it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Ergo, Petitioner's Second Petition for Habeas Corpus (d/e 26) is DENIED due to lack of appropriate certification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.