SNODGRASS v. U.S., 09-cr-30039-JPG. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20150429d87
Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 28, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Steven Snodgrass' motion for the Court to order the Government to disclose to him certain documents relating to his criminal case (Doc. 50). As authority for his motion, he cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, which allows limited discovery in criminal cases, and cases about discovery in criminal cases. The Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Snodgrass' motion. His crim
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Steven Snodgrass' motion for the Court to order the Government to disclose to him certain documents relating to his criminal case (Doc. 50). As authority for his motion, he cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, which allows limited discovery in criminal cases, and cases about discovery in criminal cases. The Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Snodgrass' motion. His crimi..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Steven Snodgrass' motion for the Court to order the Government to disclose to him certain documents relating to his criminal case (Doc. 50). As authority for his motion, he cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, which allows limited discovery in criminal cases, and cases about discovery in criminal cases. The Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Snodgrass' motion. His criminal case is over, his judgment is final, and the Court has limited authority to revisit that judgment. Snodgrass cites no authority applicable to this case at the present time. Additionally, his § 2255 proceeding is likewise over, and any attempt to reopen the judgment in this case at this point would constitute an unauthorized successive collateral attack over which the Court does not have jurisdiction. 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). For these reasons, the Court DISMISSES Snodgrass' motion (Doc. 50) for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
