United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on petitioner's application
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts provides that a district court shall
summarily dismiss a § 2254 petition if it plainly
appears that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The
petition is successive and shall be summarily dismissed.
October of 1989, a St. Louis City jury found petitioner
guilty of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. The
court sentenced petitioner to life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole, for the first-degree murder, to run
concurrently with fifty (50) years' imprisonment for
armed criminal action.
sought state and federal habeas relief after the conviction.
See Roberts v. Delo, 4:94CV1688 CEJ (E.D.Mo. 1997).
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of federal habeas
relief on March 2, 2000. See Roberts v. Delo, 205
F.3d 349, 352 (8th Cir. 2000).
application for relief, petitioner asserts that on August 17,
2016, it filed an application for authorization to file a
successive habeas application in the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals. As of this date, petitioner's application has
not yet been docketed in the Eighth Circuit.
petition before the Court, petitioner seeks relief under the
Supreme Court cases of Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct.
2455 (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct.
718 (2016). On June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court
issued its opinion in Miller, holding that the
Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory sentences of life
without parole for juvenile offenders. On January 27, 2016,
in Montgomery, the Supreme Court held that the
Miller rule must be applied retroactively.
on Miller, petitioner filed an application for writ
of habeas corpus in state court in May 2013. On March 15,
2016, the Missouri Supreme Court addressed the merits of his
Miller claim and granted him relief, making him
parole eligible on his life sentence for murder after he has
served 25 years. Despite being granted relief on his claims,
petitioner filed a motion for rehearing on March 30, 2016. On
July 18, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a
supplemental to his motion for reconsideration.
19, 2016, the Missouri Supreme Court vacated its March 15,
2016 order granting petitioner relief. The July
19th Order stated: “On the Court's own
motion, the Court's March 15, 2016, Order is Vacated. The
motion for rehearing is overruled as moot. The petition is
denied. See Senate Bill No. 590, 98th General
Assembly. All other pending motions are overruled as moot.
Order and mandate attached to this docket entry.”
Senate Bill No. 590 authorizes persons sentenced to a term of
life imprisonment without eligibility for parole before
August 28, 2016, who were under 18 years of age at the time
of the commission of their offenses, to submit to the parole
board a petition for review of their sentences after serving
25 years of incarceration. The Bill was signed by the
Governor and certain portions of the Bill immediately became
law. Thus, it appears that petitioner's application for
writ of habeas corpus may have become moot.
this Court does not have the power to make such a
determination, because it does not have jurisdiction over
petitioner's application for relief. To the extent that
petitioner seeks to relitigate claims that he brought in his
original habeas corpus petition, those claims must be denied
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1).
extent that petitioner seeks to bring new claims for habeas
relief, petitioner must obtain leave from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit before he can bring
those claims in this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
asserts that it is unnecessary to obtain leave from the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to bring the instant petition
in this action. Specifically, petitioner claims that because
he could not have raised his “claims” in his
first habeas action in this court because they have only just
arisen, he should be allowed to seek a second ...