Opinion
Case No. 01 CR 1115
06-01-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DIONNE GARCIA, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On August 19, 2013 this Court issued a memorandum order in this case that dismissed the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion by which defendant Dionne Garcia ("Garcia") sought to challenge the 200-month custodial sentence that she was (and still is) serving. Now Garcia has written this Court the attached letter (Attachment 1) accompanied by the attached home-grown document (Attachment 2) captioned "Request for Permission to File a Successive §2255 Pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Welch v. United States, No. 15-6418, S. Ct. April 18, 2016." For the reasons stated hereafter, this memorandum order must (and does) deny Garcia's "Request" without prejudice.
All further references to Title 28's provisions will simply take the form "Section --," omitting the prefatory "28 U.S.C. §."
In accordance with this District Court's consistent practice in dealing with federal prisoners' motions invoking Section 2255, a civil case number (in this instance 13 C 5815) was assigned to Garcia's Section 2255 motion in this case. That method of handling allows Section 2255 proceedings to be recorded in a single separate docket, rather than having to be traced through the typical welter of entries in a criminal case docket largely devoted to proceedings in the underlying criminal case.
It is not at all clear that the typewritten "Request" that Garcia has tendered (a document that looks as though it may have been the work product of a "jailhouse lawyer") applies to Garcia's situation. But because, as the ensuing text of this memorandum order explains, Garcia's effort must be brought before our Court of Appeals rather than this District Court, no view is expressed here as to the viability or lack of viability of her "Request" on the merits. --------
That is so because Section 2255(h) brings into play the provisions of Section 2244 that apply to any efforts to present a second or successive Section 2255 motion. In that respect Section 2244(b)(3) provides in relevant part:
(A) Before 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.
(B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district Court to consider a second or successive application shall be determined by a three-judge panel of the court of appeals.
(C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection.
Conclusion
Accordingly, as stated earlier, Garcia's current "Request" -- a motion for leave to file a second or successive Section 2255 motion -- is denied without prejudice. And as further stated in the text, this memorandum order expresses no view as to the merit or lack of merit in Garcia's current effort.
/s/_________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge Date: June 1, 2016
Image materials not available for display.