Steven Snodgrass v. United States of America; United States of America v. Steven Snodgrass

• Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
• Decided: January 13, 2026
• Docket: 3:12-cv-00050
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Criminal No 09-cr-30039-JPG

STEVEN SNODGRASS,

Defendant.

Petitioner,

v. Civil No. 12-cv-50-JPG

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on defendant/petitioner Steven Snodgrass’s motion invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(e) and Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b) (Case No. 09-cr-30039, Doc. 163; Case No. 12-cv-50, Doc. 88). The Court entered judgment on November 20, 2013, denying the petitioner’s original motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Case No. 12-cv-50, Doc. 23). In the pending motion, Snodgrass now seeks to vacate his criminal sentence because the Government fabricated evidence against him. Snodgrass’s motion is an unauthorized successive § 2255 petition. A post-judgment motion that advances a new claim, that is, a new ground for relief from a conviction, or an attack on the Court’s prior resolution of a ground for relief on the merits is a successive petition. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531 (2005) (habeas context); see United States v. Scott, 414 F.3d 815, 816 (7th Cir. 2005) (considering post-judgment Rule 6(e) motion). Snodgrass’s pending motion asserts a new ground for relief from his criminal judgment and is therefore a successive petition under the rule of Gonzalez. In order for this 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). The Court of Appeals has not made such a

certification. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Snodgrass’s motion. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the motion (Case No. 09-cr-30039, Doc. 163; Case No. 12- cv-50, Doc. 88) for lack of jurisdiction. 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 § 2255 petitioner may not proceed on appeal without a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Ouska v. Cahill- Masching, 246 F.3d 1036, 1045 (7th Cir. 2001). 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, 246 F.3d at 1045. To make such a showing where the Court denies relief on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (emphasis added); accord Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012). Thus, disputes about procedural or statutory issues in a case cannot justify a certificate of appealability unless “a substantial constitutional issue lurks in the background, and the statutory question is independently substantial.” Ramunno v. United States, 264 F.3d 723, 725 (7th Cir. 2001)

2 (question of a petition’s timeliness) (citing Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-85). Snodgrass has not made a showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether his motion is an unauthorized successive motion or whether any constitutional claims “lurk in the background” of any non-constitutional issues. Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

Because Snodgrass refers to potential civil rights violations in his motion, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send him a Civil Complaint for Civil Rights Violation or Other Civil Claims by a Person in Custody form along with the instructions for completing the form. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 12, 2026

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