Opinion
Case No. 13-C-915 92-CR-178
08-13-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ERNEST PARKER-BEY, Movant.
DECISION AND ORDER
Over six years ago, the Court observed that Ernest Parker-Bey is "one of this district's most frequent filers. To wit, the Court discovered at least four motions attacking his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, all of which were denied." Case No. 07-C-213, March 6, 2007 Decision and Order. Parker-Bey now files what he calls a "Motion to Reconsider Pre-Sentencing Application of Sentencing Guidelines Pursuant to Rule 32." This is simply another § 2255 motion in disguise. Melton v. United States, 359 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2004) ("the name makes no difference. It is substance that controls"). If Parker-Bey files another successive motion, he will be sanctioned under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Smith v. Gilmore, 111 F.3d 55 (7th Cir. 1997).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to open a separate civil 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action with Parker-Bey's motion [ECF No. 288], which is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 13th day of August, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
_________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge