Jackson-Bey v. United States of America, No. 2:2013cv00349 - Document 1 (N.D. Ind. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER on Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255): it is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 10/15/13. cc: Jackson-Bey(mc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent, vs. HANEEF JACKSON-BEY, Defendant/Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 2:09-cr-43 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, filed by Petitioner, Haneef Jackson-Bey, on September 27, 2013 (DE #485). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. BACKGROUND On August 23, 2011, Jackson-Bey, pro se, filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody. (DE #402.) This Court entered an order on January 23, 2012, denying the section 2255 petition. #409.) Jackson-Bey then filed a motion to reconsider. The Court also denied the motion to reconsider. (DE (DE #421.) (DE #422.) DISCUSSION Following a direct appeal, a defendant generally has one opportunity to challenge his conviction and sentence. Suggs v. United States, 705 F.3d 279, 281-82 (7th Cir. 2013); 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), (h). Should a defendant wish to file a second or successive section 2255 motion challenging that same conviction or sentence, he must first gain authorization to do so from the court of appeals; otherwise, the district jurisdiction to consider the motion. U.S.C. §§ 2244(a)-(b), 2255(h). court does not have Suggs, 705 F.3d at 282; 28 In general, only those successive motions which challenge the underlying conviction and present newly discovered evidence of defendant s innocence or rely on a new retroactive constitutional law will be certified by the court of appeals for district court review. U.S.C. § 2255(h). Suggs, 705 F.3d at 282-83; 28 No matter how powerful a petitioner s showing, only [the Seventh Circuit] may authorize the commencement of a second or successive petition. 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d As the Nunez Court explained: From the district court's perspective, it is an allocation of subject-matter jurisdiction to the court of appeals. A district court must dismiss a second or successive petition, without awaiting any response from the government, unless the court of appeals has given approval for its filing. . . . A second or successive collateral attack may no more begin in the district court than a criminal prosecution may commence in the court of appeals. 2 Nunez, 96 F.3d at 991 (emphasis in original). Because Jackson-Bey has already filed a section 2255 motion with this Court, his current section 2255 motion is considered a successive collateral attack on his sentence. He has not obtained permission from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file this successive section 2255 motion, and, therefore, it is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. DATED: October 15, 2013 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge United States District Court 3

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.