From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Davis

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 22, 2022
2:98-cr-0114 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2022)

Opinion

2:98-cr-0114 KJM AC P

06-22-2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, v. D'ANGELO DOMINICO DAVIS, Movant.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Movant, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for leave to file a successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF Nos. 448, 449.

“A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain” either newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that “no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty” or “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Therefore, movant must request leave to file a successive § 2255 motion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3(a) provides that “[i]f an application for authorization to file a second or successive . . . section 2255 motion is mistakenly submitted to the district court, the district court shall refer it to the court of appeals.”

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Movant's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 448) be DENIED as unnecessary.
2. Movant's motion to file a successive § 2255 motion (ECF No. 449) be referred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).


Summaries of

United States v. Davis

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 22, 2022
2:98-cr-0114 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2022)
Case details for

United States v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, v. D'ANGELO DOMINICO DAVIS, Movant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 22, 2022

Citations

2:98-cr-0114 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2022)