U.S. v. COX

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT v. GAYLON RICHARD COX PETITIONER

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas

Date published: May 7, 2008

NO. 4:98-CR-00073 GTE (E.D. Ark. May. 7, 2008)

Opinion

NO. 4:98-CR-00073 GTE.

May 7, 2008

ORDER

GARNETT EISELE, Senior District Judge

Before the Court is a motion filed by Petitioner Gaylon Richard Cox and entitled "Cox Reappears Under Rule 59(e)." Mr. Cox is proceeding pro se.

The motion relates to Petitioner's previous request for a Writ of Autida Querela. The Court previously rejected Petitioner's Motion for Writ of Autida Querela and Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. (See Orders dated March 18, 2008 and April 4, 2008, Docket Nos. 126 and 128). This is Petitioner's third motion on this same issue.

Petitioner's sentence of life imprisonment imposed by this Court has been affirmed by the Eighth Circuit. See United States v. Cox, 225 F.3d 1018 (8^th Cir. 2000), vacated and reinstated solely to allow petition for certiorari to be filed, 294 F.3d 959 (8^th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1037 (2002). Petitioner sought but was denied post-conviction relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Eighth Circuit has also affirmed the denial of any post-conviction relief. See Cox v. United States, 294 F.3d 959 (8^th Cir. 2002).

Despite receiving a full review of his conviction and sentence, Petitioner has filed 5 motions in this Court since the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. In denying certain of those filings, this Court has specifically stated that there is no legal defect or fundamental error in the original proceeding or in the sentence Petitioner received. Yet, Petitioner continues to file motions. Because Petitioner shows no restraint in filing and re-filing motions attempting to challenge his conviction and/or his life sentence, it is necessary to restrict Mr. Cox from continuing to file pleadings in this case. There must be some end to this case.

Accordingly,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider (Docket No. 129) be, and it is hereby, DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, on the Court's own motion, that Mr. Cox shall refrain from continuing to file motions in this case challenging his conviction or sentence. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further filings from Mr. Cox without the prior approval of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.