Brooks v. USA
||Steven Bernard Brooks
||December 12, 2012
||Hawaii District Court
||KEVIN S.C. CHANG
||SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY
|Nature of Suit:
||Prisoner: Vacate Sentence
|Cause of Action:
||28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|July 10, 2013
ORDER DENYING SECOND PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 re 1 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 7/10/13. "Because Brooks has failed to obtain the required certification for purposes of § 2255(h), the c ourt denies Brooks's motion without prejudice to its being refiled if Brooks obtains such certification. To the extent an appeal from the present ruling requires Brooks to obtain a certificate of appealability, this court declines to i ssue a certificate of appealability and instead states that Brooks's remedy is to seek certification from the Ninth Circuit for a second or successive § 2255 motion. This order renders moot the request contained in Brooks's letter t o the court dated June 30, 2013, regarding participation by telephone in the hearing previously scheduled for July 29, 2012. No hearing will be conducted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment against Brooks in the civil action." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Steven Bernard Brooks shall be served by first class mail at the address of record on July 11, 2013.
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Hawaii District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.