Filed: Aug. 20, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's "Motion [to the] Court and Request for the Disposition of Indictments Rule RSMO 217.450-217.485 Under the Article III Agreement Detainers." After reviewing Petitioner's motion, it appears that it is really a second motion for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner asserts in his motion that he
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's "Motion [to the] Court and Request for the Disposition of Indictments Rule RSMO 217.450-217.485 Under the Article III Agreement Detainers." After reviewing Petitioner's motion, it appears that it is really a second motion for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner asserts in his motion that he h..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's "Motion [to the] Court and Request for the Disposition of Indictments Rule RSMO § 217.450-217.485 Under the Article III Agreement Detainers." After reviewing Petitioner's motion, it appears that it is really a second motion for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Petitioner asserts in his motion that he has sought to proceed pro se in his criminal action, and he motions the Court for disposition of the state court criminal indictments against him.1
The Court has reviewed the docket of Petitioner's criminal action on Missouri Case.Net and notes that a new attorney, Jeffrey Matthew Shellenbergar, entered his appearance on Petitioner's behalf on August 1, 2013. As noted in the Court's prior Memorandum and Order, as well as the Court's Memorandum and Order denying Petitioner's prior motion for reconsideration of the dismissal, Petitioner's allegations of the denial of his speedy trial rights are entirely conclusory and do not contain any facts, which if proved, would demonstrate that he has been deprived of the right to a speedy trial. Additionally, the claims raised by Petitioner can be adequately raised with his appointed counsel, at trial or in a subsequent state proceeding. As a result, Petitioner's current motion before the Court will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's "Motion [to the] Court and Request for the Disposition of Indictments Rule RSMO § 217.450-217.485 Under the Article III Agreement Detainers." [Doc. #6] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall not be allowed to file any additional motions in this closed case.
