Opinion
CASE NO. 4:99CR00042 JMM.
March 22, 2010
ORDER
On February 1, 2000, defendant was convicted in district court of attempted armed bank robbery, use of a firearm in a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Court entered a Judgment and Commitment Order on October 18, 2000, sentencing defendant to life imprisonment, a consecutive sentence of 84 months, a concurrent sentence of 120 months, supervised release of 5 years, and a special assessment of $300.00.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence on September 24, 2001, see United States v. Davis, 260 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2001), and the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari on January 14, 2002.
On April 8, 2002, defendant filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion which was denied by district court. Defendant did not appeal this denial. On June 27, 2005, defendant filed a second pro se § 2255 motion which was denied as successive. The defendant sought, and was denied, permission from the Court of Appeals to file a successive § 2255 petition.
On February 2, 2010, defendant filed a pro se Notice of Satisfaction of Judgment contending that because he has now paid his $300.00 special assessment, his Judgment and Commitment Order is void. He contends that he is being "forced to continue a service of imprisonment no longer permitted by the laws and Constitution of the United States." He seeks immediate release from prison pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, a Writ of Prohibition, a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a Writ of Coram Nobis, A Writ of Audita Querela, A Writ of Mandamus, and any other applicable Writ.
Defendant's Notice of Satisfaction of Judgment raises claims that fall within the scope of § 2255 and he cannot evade the rule against successive petitions by re-naming his pleading. Because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied defendant permission to maintain a successive § 2255 motion, the Court lacks authority to grant him the relief he seeks.
For the reasons set forth above, the instant Notice of Satisfaction of Judgment which the Court construes as a petition for habeas corpus relief is DENIED without prejudice (#165).
IT IS SO ORDERED.