Opinion
Cause No. CR 03-28-BU-DWM Cause No. CV 16-19-BU-DWM
05-03-2016
ORDER DISMISSING § 2255 MOTION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The Court has received yet another motion from Defendant Meeks. Because Meeks is seeking relief under Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the motion is recharacterized as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
As Meeks knows, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain successive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 149 (2007) (per curiam).
Further, both this Court and the Court of Appeals have given Meeks opportunities to show he is entitled to relief under the Supreme Court's decisions in Johnson or Descamps v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013). Counsel was appointed to act for him. Counsel failed to identify any reason to believe Meeks was not properly sentenced. See generally Order (Doc. 181); Order (Doc. 188); Mem. (Doc. 191) at 2, United States v. Meeks, No. 13-36023 (9th Cir. Sept. 22, 2015); Order (Doc. 195); Order (Doc. 202).
Consequently, although the court of appeals alone has jurisdiction to consider whether Meeks should be permitted to proceed with a successive § 2255 motion, there is no reason to transfer Meeks' instant motion to the court of appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 1631. There is no reason to believe Meeks is entitled to relief under Johnson or Descamps.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Meeks' motion (Doc. 203), recharacterized as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, is DISMISSED as an unauthorized successive motion.
2. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall immediately process the appeal if Meeks files a Notice of Appeal;
3. The Clerk of Court shall ensure that all pending motions in this case and in CV 16-19-BU-DWM are terminated and shall close the civil file by entering judgment in favor of the United States and against Meeks.
DATED this 3rd day of May, 2016.
/s/_________
Donald W. Molloy
United States District Judge