Opinion
No. 04 C 2685, (97 CR 697).
August 10, 2004
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Andrew Traeger ("Traeger"), like the Energizer Bunny, keeps going and going and going. Since this Court most recently issued its short July 20, 2004 memorandum order denying reconsideration of its July 8 memorandum opinion and order that had denied Traeger's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, it has received two more filings from Traeger, respectively captioned "Motion To Leave For Reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order" and "Motion To Leave For This Court To Consider Jurisdiction of the Indictment."
All further references to Title 28's provisions will simply take the form "Section ____."
It seems quite certain that the first of those filings and this Court's July 20 memorandum order crossed in the mails: Although the motion did not arrive in the Clerk's Office until July 26, Traeger's notice of filing states that he placed the document in the legal mailbox at his Terre Haute place of confinement on July 16. In any event, nothing said in that initial motion calls for further reconsideration, so the motion is denied.
As for the second and more recent filing, it does not come within the purview of this Court except as a potential Section 2255 motion. But under the Supreme Court's teaching, this Court cannot sua sponte relabel the motion as one filed under Section 2255 — and if Traeger were to seek to do so, Section 2244(b)(3)(A) requires that he must move in the first instance in our Court of Appeals for an order authorizing this District Court to consider the application.
Accordingly both motions are denied. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, however, such denial as to the second filing is without prejudice to Traeger's ability to seek leave from the Court of Appeals to proceed with a second Section 2255 motion.