Segars v. United States of America, No. 3:2005cv00360 - Document 2 (N.D. Ind. 2005)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 1 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) as not properly before this court. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 6/14/05. (ksc)

Download PDF
Segars v. United States of America Doc. 2 case 3:05-cv-00360-RLM document 2 filed 06/14/2005 page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. JAMES CLETIS SEGARS (01) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:91-CR-2 RM OPINION and ORDER James Segars has filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and/or Void Excess Sentence, wherein he requests that any sentence in excess of the maximum sentence of 16 months be vacated. Mr. Segars claims recent Supreme Court rulings rendered this court without jurisdiction or authority to impose a sentence in excess of sixteen months. Although Mr. Segars captions his filing as a motion to dismiss, his request to have his sentence vacated, set aside, or corrected is, in fact, a motion made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Mr. Segars original petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied, and the denial affirmed on appeal, see Segars v. United States, No. 01-1251, 2001 WL 747587 (7th Cir. Jul. 2, 2001), his current filing must be considered to be a second or successive petition under § 2255. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 provides that before a second or successive motion is filed with the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. Accordingly, Mr. Segars motion to vacate his sentence [filed June 13, 2005] is DENIED as not properly before this court. Dockets.Justia.com case 3:05-cv-00360-RLM document 2 filed 06/14/2005 SO ORDERED. ENTERED: June 14, 2005 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Chief Judge United States District Court cc: J. Segars 2 page 2 of 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.