Cox v. U.S., 3:15CV1130 (AWT). (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Connecticut
Number: infdco20180523c81
Visitors: 4
Filed: May 22, 2018
Latest Update: May 22, 2018
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE 2255 MOTION ALVIN W. THOMPSON , District Judge . Petitioner Clinton Cox's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2255(f) (Doc. No. 1) must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner failed to seek leave from the Second Circuit to file a second, or successive, habeas petition prior to filing the instant motion. In addition, after he filed it, the petitioner sought leave from the Second Circuit to file the instant, successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE 2255 MOTION ALVIN W. THOMPSON , District Judge . Petitioner Clinton Cox's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2255(f) (Doc. No. 1) must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner failed to seek leave from the Second Circuit to file a second, or successive, habeas petition prior to filing the instant motion. In addition, after he filed it, the petitioner sought leave from the Second Circuit to file the instant, successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The ..
More
ORDER DISMISSING SUCCESSIVE § 2255 MOTION
ALVIN W. THOMPSON, District Judge.
Petitioner Clinton Cox's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2255(f) (Doc. No. 1) must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The petitioner failed to seek leave from the Second Circuit to file a second, or successive, habeas petition prior to filing the instant motion. In addition, after he filed it, the petitioner sought leave from the Second Circuit to file the instant, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Second Circuit denied his request "because the [p]etitioner fails to satisfy the criteria set forth on 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)." Mandate issued on August 25, 2016, Court of Appeals Doc. No. 16-1877 (Case No. 3:11CV1568, Doc. No. 74). Also, the court noted that
Petitioner seeks to raise a claim based on Dorsey v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 2321 (2012). However, in that decision, the Supreme Court addressed statutory interpretation and did not announce a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive on collateral review. See In re Shines, 696 F.3d 1330, 1332 (10th Cir. 2012).
Id. Accordingly, the petition is barred and must be dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Source: Leagle
