United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MICHAEL G. ROBINSON, Movant,
UNITED STATES, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the motion of movant Michael G.
Robinson to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket No. 1). Movant has filed a
previous § 2255 motion, and has not received
authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit to file a second motion. Therefore, for the
reasons discussed below, the Court will summarily deny and
dismiss the motion without further proceedings. See
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
9, 2015, movant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of
a firearm. United States v. Robinson,
1:15-cr-50-SNLJ-l (E.D. Mo.). On November 10, 2015, he was
sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment. He did not file a
filed his first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on April 4,
2016. Robinson v. United States, No. 1:16-cv-72-SNLJ
(E.D. Mo.). In the motion, he sought relief under Johnson
v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The Court
denied movant's motion on August 29, 2016. Movant did not
file an appeal.
filed the instant § 2255 motion on November 20, 2019, by
placing it in his prison's mailing system. (Docket No. 1 at
2). He asks the Court to set aside or vacate his sentence
based on the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v.
United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019). (Docket No. 1 at
1). Specifically, movant argues that he is actually innocent
of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) because he did not know
that he "fell in the categories of person to whom the
offense applies." That is, he states he had no knowledge
that he was barred from possessing a firearm.
is a pro se litigant currently incarcerated at the United
States Penitentiary in Coleman, Florida. He brings this
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States
District Courts provides that a district court shall dismiss
a § 2255 motion if "it plainly appears from the
motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior
proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to
relief." Here, it plainly appears that movant is not
entitled to relief because he has filed a prior § 2255
motion, making the instant motion successive.
Second or Successive
district court is not "required to entertain an
application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the
detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of
the United States if it appears that the legality of such
detention has been determined.. .on a prior application for a
writ of habeas corpus." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a).
Rather, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996, a federal inmate seeking relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 must first receive certification from the court
of appeals to file a second or successive motion. United
States v. Brown, 915 F.3d 1200, 1201 (8th
Cir. 2019). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)
("Before a second or successive application permitted by
this section is filed in the district court, the applicant
shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider the
inmate cannot evade this rule "by simply filing a
successive § 2255 motion in the district court."
Baranski v. United States, 880 F.3d 951, 955
(8th Cir. 2018). See also Boyd v. United
States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002)
(stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals is a "prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3)... to the filing of a second or successive habeas
petition"). Instead, it is up to the court of appeals to
determine whether movant has made a prima facie case that he
has satisfied the requirements of § 2255. See Woods
v. United States, 805 F.3d 1152, 1153 (8th
noted above, movant has filed a prior § 2255 motion. The
prior motion was filed on April 4, 2016 and denied without a
hearing on August 29, 2016. Therefore, the instant motion is
a second motion requiring certification from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Movant has
not sought such certification. Absent certification, the
Court lacks authority under § 2255 to grant movant's
requested relief. For this reason, movant's § 2255
motion must be denied and dismissed.
Certificate of Appealability
Court has considered whether or not to issue a certificate of
appealability. In order to issue such a certificate, the
Court must find a substantial showing of the denial of a
federal right. See Tiedeman v. Benson,122 F.3d 518,
522 (8th Cir. 1997). "A substantial showing
is a showing that issues are debatable among reasonable
jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or the
issues deserve further proceedings." Cox v.
Norris,133 F.3d 565, ...