Circuit Rule 22.2. Successive Petitions for Collateral Review

(a) A request under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) or the final paragraph of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for leave to file a second or
successive petition must include the following information and attachments, in this order:

(1) A short narrative statement of all claims the person wishes to present for decision. This statement
must disclose whether any of these claims has been presented previously to any state or federal court and,
if it was, how each court to which it was presented resolved it. If the claim has not previously been
presented to a federal court, the applicant must state either:

(A) That the claim depends on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court; or

(B) That the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through
the exercise of due diligence and that the facts, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as
a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable
factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the crime, had there been no constitutional
error.

(2) A short narrative statement explaining how the person proposes to establish the requirements
mentioned above. An applicant who relies on a new rule of constitutional law must identify the new rule,
the case that establishes that rule, and the decision of the Supreme Court that holds this new rule
applicable to cases on collateral review.

(3) Copies of all opinions rendered by any state or federal court previously rendered in the criminal
prosecution, any appeal, and any collateral attack.

(4) Copies of all prior petitions or motions for collateral review.

(b) A copy of the application, together with all attachments, must be served on the attorney for the appropriate
government agency at the same time as the application is filed with the court. The application must include a
certificate stating who was served, by what means, and when. If the application is made by a prisoner who is not
represented by counsel, filing and service may be made under the terms of Fed. R. App. P. 4(c).

(c) Except in capital cases in which execution is imminent, the attorney for the custodian (in state cases) or the
United States Attorney (in federal cases) may file a response within 14 days. When an execution is imminent, the
court will not wait for a response. A response must include copies of any petitions or opinions that the applicant
omitted from the papers.

(d) The applicant may file a reply memorandum within 10 days of the response, after which the request will be
submitted to a panel of the court for decision.

(e) An applicant’s failure to supply the information and documents required by this rule will lead the court to
dismiss the application, but without prejudice to its renewal in proper form.



assist Perkins if he chooses to attempt to do so (a subject on
which it should be emphasized that this Court expresses no view),
this opinion is accompanied by a copy of Circuit Rule 22.2, which

explains the procedure for seeking such leave from the Court of

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Appeals.

Date: February 26, 2001


Minute Onder form 106/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Na ssigned Judge i , Judge if Other
ne Magra Judge Milton 1, Shadur * asigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 846 DATE 2/26/2001
CASE USA ex rel. Michael Perkins vs. Kenneth R. Briley
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, c.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented. ]

qa)

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

ql) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.}

(2) a Brief in support of motion due

(3) o Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due

(4) o Ruling/Hearing on set for at

(S) im Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on ___eset for at.

(6) g Pretrial conference{held/continued to] (set for/re-set for] on __ set for at.

(7) o Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued toa

(9) im} This case is dismissed [with/without} prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
CFRCP4(m) General Rule2] OO FRCP41(a\(}) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(ee | [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Perkins’ Application to procecd in

forma pauperis is granted. (3-1) This Court summarily dismisses the Petition without prejudice to its

possible renewal if Perkins were hereafter to obtain leave to file from the Court of Appeals.

| [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court

No notices required her of not

Notices mailed by judge’:

FEB > 6 200!

Notified counsel by telephone. ‘date docketed

Docketing to mail notices

Mail AO 450 form.

docketing deputy initials

Copy (o judge/magistrate judge.
ans2001

of} date maied notice
courtroom, wise tad

SN deputty’s
initials

SN

Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office nating deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
MICHAEL PERKINS #N-21159,

)
)
)
Petitioner, )
v1)
v. ) No. 01 C 846

KENNETH R. BRILEY, ) PB a 5.

)

) Sa

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

State prisoner Michael Perkins (“Perkins”) has filed a self-
prepared Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition”) pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §2254.! Perkins challenges his multiple convictions
for robbery on multiple grounds, asserting that the police
brutalized him, that his trial counsel was ineffective, that
there was no proof he had confessed and that there was no
evidence that he was armed at the time of the offense.

At the outset this Court grants Perkins’ Application To
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“Application”). Despite the modest $5
filing fee required in habeas cases, which almost invariably
calls for the denial of such applications, here Perkins’
Application includes a statement from the appropriate official at
Stateville Correctional Center (where Perkins is now in custody)
that reflects a large negative balance in Perkins’ inmate trust

fund account (a deficit of $470.26 as of January 23, 2001, and an

1 All further references to Title 28's provisions will

simply take the form “Section--.”


average of $446.05 in the red for the preceding six months) .
That situation calls for this Court to excuse payment of the
filing fee.

But that gets Perkins to the federal courthouse door only
long enough for it to slam shut on him immediately. Section
2244 (b) (3) (A) expressly requires a habeas petitioner such as
Perkins to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals before
this District Court can consider a “second or successive
application.” In this instance Perkins had filed an earlier
Petition (Perkins v. Page, No. 98 C 5453) that was denied by this
Court's colleague Honorable Ruben Castillo on the merits on
February 25, 1999--and thereafter our Court of Appeals upheld
that determination by denying Perkins’ request for a certificate
of appealability.

That prior history of course renders Perkins’ current effort
a “second or successive application.” And because Perkins makes
no showing that he has either sought or obtained the required
prior leave from the Court of Appeals, this Court is without
jurisdiction to entertain the current Section 2254 Petition (see,
among the earliest of the numerous cases so holding, Nunez v.
United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7 Cir. 1996)).

Accordingly this Court summarily dismisses the Petition
without prejudice to its possible renewal if Perkins were

hereafter to obtain leave to file from the Court of Appeals. To