Filed: Jun. 14, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 14, 2012
Summary: ORDER LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge. This matter appears before the court on Tara Marie Morrow's motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 (docket no. 1) and motion to appoint counsel (docket no. 2). Tara Marie Morrow ("the movant") filed both motions on June 11, 2012. Additionally, the movant filed a supplement (docket no. 3) on June 12, 2012. The court did not direct the government to respond to any of the movant's pleadings. The movant previously s
Summary: ORDER LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge. This matter appears before the court on Tara Marie Morrow's motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 (docket no. 1) and motion to appoint counsel (docket no. 2). Tara Marie Morrow ("the movant") filed both motions on June 11, 2012. Additionally, the movant filed a supplement (docket no. 3) on June 12, 2012. The court did not direct the government to respond to any of the movant's pleadings. The movant previously so..
More
ORDER
LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge.
This matter appears before the court on Tara Marie Morrow's motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (docket no. 1) and motion to appoint counsel (docket no. 2). Tara Marie Morrow ("the movant") filed both motions on June 11, 2012. Additionally, the movant filed a supplement (docket no. 3) on June 12, 2012. The court did not direct the government to respond to any of the movant's pleadings.
The movant previously sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and, before filing the instant action, the movant did not move the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for authorization allowing the court to file and consider a second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides:
Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.
"This rule is absolute." Boykin v. United States, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 27076 at *1-3, 2000 WL 1610732 at *1 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam unpublished opinion) (vacating judgment regarding 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and remanding case to district court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction). Cf. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 662, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 135 L. Ed. 2d 827 (1996) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)); Vancleave v. Norris, 150 F.3d 926, 927-28 (8th Cir. 1998) (same). Accordingly, the movant's instant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion shall be dismissed. Additionally, the movant's motion to appoint counsel shall be denied as moot.1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
The movant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (docket no. 1) is DISMISSED and the movant's motion to appoint counsel (docket no. 2) is DENIED as moot.
