December 5, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DAMIAN ANTONIO MURPHY, Defendant.
Damian Antonio Murphy, Pro Se Defendant.
JAMES P. JONES, District Judge.
The defendant, Damian Antonio Murphy, proceeding pro se, filed related pleadings styled as a "MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM VOID JUDGMENT SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, PURSUANT TO 60(b)(4)." This motion asserts that I erred in denying relief on Murphy's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Specifically, Murphy argues that I relied on the government's characterization of his pro se claims and failed to address some claims. After reviewing Stewart's current submission and the record, I will deny Stewart's motion under the authority he cites and will construe and dismiss it as a successive § 2255 motion.
As stated, Murphy has already pursued a § 2255 motion regarding the same judgment. See United States v. Murphy, No. 1:06CR00062, 2011 WL 181938 (W.D. Va. Jan. 20, 2011), appeal dismissed, 449 F.App'x 307 (4th Cir. 2011). (unpublished). His current motion is not properly considered as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60, because he merely repeats or recasts claims the court has already decided or found to be procedurally defaulted. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-31 (2005). Instead, I must construe his submission as a new § 2255 motion. Id.
This court may consider a second or successive § 2255 motion only upon specific certification from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. § 2255(h). Murphy offers no indication that he has obtained certification from the court of appeals to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Therefore, I will direct the clerk's office to redocket Stewart's submissions as a § 2255 motion, which I will summarily dismiss as successive.