PAVA v. U.S., 8:07-CR-00289-T-24 AEP (2016)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20160714b96
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 12, 2016
Summary: ORDER SUSAN C. BUCKLEW , District Judge . Pending before the Court is the Petitioner's Motion to Vacate filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. Because Petitioner's motion is a successive motion to vacate which was filed directly with this Court, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Petitioner's application to file a second or successive motion to vacate, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion. See Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211 , 1216 (11th Cir. 2003);
Summary: ORDER SUSAN C. BUCKLEW , District Judge . Pending before the Court is the Petitioner's Motion to Vacate filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. Because Petitioner's motion is a successive motion to vacate which was filed directly with this Court, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Petitioner's application to file a second or successive motion to vacate, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion. See Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211 , 1216 (11th Cir. 2003); ..
More
ORDER
SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Petitioner's Motion to Vacate filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Petitioner's motion is a successive motion to vacate which was filed directly with this Court, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Petitioner's application to file a second or successive motion to vacate, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion. See Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003); accord United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Farris); see also Harris v. United States, ___ F.App'x ___, 2016 WL 3538824, at *1 (11th Cir. June 29, 2016) (unpublished) (stating that "the district court was required to dismiss [the petitioner's] motion sua sponte because, `[w]ithout authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive [motion]'" (quoting Holt)).1
ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Vacate (Civ. Dkt. 1; Cr. Dkt. 126) is denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for the Defendant in the civil case and to CLOSE the civil case.
Additionally, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because the Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
DONE AND ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. On April 7, 2011, the Court denied the Petitioner's initial motion to vacate. See case number 8:11-cv-323-T-24 AEP, Dkt. 4.
Source: Leagle
