U.S. v. Short

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICHAEL SHORT

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Sep 6, 2002

Criminal Action 96-232-1, Section "T" (3) (E.D. La. Sep. 6, 2002)

Opinion

Criminal Action 96-232-1, Section "T" (3)

September 6, 2002

ORDER

G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR., United States District Judge

Michael Short has filed a "Motion Seeking Relief From Final Judgment of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1) Under Civil Rule 60(b)(5) and (6)", wherein Short seeks to have his 2255 Motion, ruled upon in June 2001, reopened and re-adjudicated as it relates to Grounds Two and Three. The Court has reviewed the record in this case, as well as the arguments presented by Mr. Short, and hereby finds that petitioner has exhausted his remedies before this Court.

On June 28, 2001, this Court entered an Order and Reasons denying Michael Short's Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on all seventeen grounds. A Final Judgment was later signed on July 9, 2001, with respect to said denial. Michael Short then filed a Motion for Reconsideration which this Court likewise denied on July 24, 2001.

Thereafter, Mr. Short filed a Notice of Appeal in this Court wherein he noticed his intention to appeal both the denial of his Motion to Vacate Sentence and the denial of his Motion to Reconsider. A Motion for Certificate of Appealability was likewise filed. On October 15, 2001, the Court denied petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on January 4, 2002, likewise denied Short's Motion for Certificate of Appealability with respect to this Court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denial of the Motion to Reconsider. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit found: (1) that Short had not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right concerning the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) that Short's Richardson claim was procedurally barred; and, (3) that Short had not shown that reasonable jurists would find that the district court erred in denying his Rule 59(c) motion. As such, it is the opinion of this Court that it is without jurisdiction to grant the type of relief sought by petitioner in this most recent filing.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the "Motion Seeking Relief From Final Judgment of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1) Under Civil Rule 60(b)(5) and (6)", same is hereby DENIED.