Moore v. United States

• Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
• Decided: April 24, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01316
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ANTHONY E. MOORE,

Petitioner,

v. Civil No. 23-cv-1316-JPG Criminal No. 06-cr-40063-JPG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Anthony E. Moore’s motion to vacate, correct or set aside his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). It has come to the Court’s attention that this is not Moore’s first § 2255 motion. He filed his first motion in October 2012, and the Court denied it. See Moore v. United States, 12-cv-1107-JPG (July 24, 2013). In order for the Court to consider a successive petition, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals must certify the successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Curry v. United States, 507 F.3d 603, 604 (7th Cir. 2007); Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). It has not done so and has, in fact, twice expressly denied Moore permission to file a successive petition. See Appeal No. 18-1756 (7th Cir. Apr. 20, 2018); Appeal No. 16-1719 (7th Cir. Apr. 8, 2016). Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the pending § 2255 motion. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action for lack of jurisdiction and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings and Rule 22(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court considers whether to issue a certificate of appealability of this final order adverse to the petitioner. A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004); Ouska v. Cahill-Masching, 246 F.3d 1036, 1045 (7th Cir. 2001). To make such a showing, the petitioner must “demonstrate that reasonable jurists could debate whether [the] challenge in [the] habeas petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issue presented was adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Ouska, 246 F.3d at 1046; accord Buck v. Davis,

137 S. Ct. 759, 773 (2017); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S. 322, 327 (2003). The Court finds that Moore has not made such a showing and, accordingly, DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 24, 2023

s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE