U.S. v. London

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. AARON CEDRIC LONDON, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Aug 22, 2008

Civil Action No. 08-148 Erie, Criminal Action No. 01-01 Erie (W.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 08-148 Erie, Criminal Action No. 01-01 Erie.

August 22, 2008

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SEAN McLAUGHLIN, District Judge

Presently pending before the Court is a motion entitled "A Motion For Relief Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) thru An Independant Action of The District Court" [Doc. No. 79] filed by Petitioner Aaron Cedric London, and the "Government's Motion to dismiss Petitioner's Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 As An Unauthorized Second or Successive Petition" [Doc. No. 80]. For the reasons that follow, the Government's Motion will be granted.

On October 6, 2003, London filed a timely Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. London claimed that: (1) the United States failed to hand over bank surveillance photographs in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); (2) trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to obtain exculpatory evidence from the prosecution; and (3) this Court lacked jurisdiction since the offense was not committed on government property. See Motion ¶ 13(b). [Doc. No. 65]. We denied London's motion on August 11, 2004 and ordered that no certificate of appealability be issued based upon the failure to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Memorandum Opinion and Order [Doc. No. 73].

On May 15, 2008, London filed a petition styled "A Motion For Relief Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) thru An Independant Action of The District Court" which is treated as the functional equivalent of a second or successive habeas petition. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005); Pridgen v. Shannon, 380 F.3d 721, 727 (3^rd Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1155 (2005). Since London has not received authorization from the Third Circuit to file his most recent petition, we lack jurisdiction to entertain it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139 (3^rd Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 826 (2003).

We shall therefore grant the Government's motion to dismiss without prejudice to London's right to seek authorization from the Third Circuit for this Court to consider a second or successive § 2255 motion.

AND NOW, this 22^nd day of August, 2008, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government's Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's Motion [Doc. No. 80] is GRANTED.