USA v. Snodgrass

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN SNODGRASS,
Defendant.
Criminal No 09-cr-30039-JPG
STEVEN SNODGRASS,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
Civil No. 12-cv-50-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant/petitioner Steven Snodgrass’s motion
invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(e) and Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b) (Case No.
09-cr-30039, Doc. 163; Case No. 12-cv-50, Doc. 88). The Court entered judgment on
November 20, 2013, denying the petitioner’s original motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Case No.
12-cv-50, Doc. 23). In the pending motion, Snodgrass now seeks to vacate his criminal
sentence because the Government fabricated evidence against him.
Snodgrass’s motion is an unauthorized successive § 2255 petition. A post-judgment
motion that advances a new claim, that is, a new ground for relief from a conviction, or an attack
on the Court’s prior resolution of a ground for relief on the merits is a successive petition. See
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531 (2005) (habeas context); see United States v. Scott, 414
F.3d 815, 816 (7th Cir. 2005) (considering post-judgment Rule 6(e) motion). Snodgrass’s
Case 3:09-cr-30039-JPG Document 166 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
pending motion asserts a new ground for relief from his criminal judgment and is therefore a
successive petition under the rule of Gonzalez. In order for this Court to consider a successive
petition, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals must certify the successive petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h). Curry v. United States, 507 F.3d 603, 604 (7th Cir. 2007); Nunez v. United
States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). The Court of Appeals has not made such a
certification. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Snodgrass’s motion.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the motion (Case No. 09-cr-30039, Doc. 163; Case No. 12-
cv-50, Doc. 88) for lack of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings and Rule 22(b)(1) of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court considers whether to issue a certificate of
appealability of this final order adverse to the petitioner. A § 2255 petitioner may not proceed
on appeal without a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Ouska v. Cahill-
Masching, 246 F.3d 1036, 1045 (7th Cir. 2001). A certificate of appealability may issue “only
if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004); Ouska, 246 F.3d at 1045.
To make such a showing where the Court denies relief on procedural grounds, the petitioner
must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim
of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000) (emphasis added); accord Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012). Thus,
disputes about procedural or statutory issues in a case cannot justify a certificate of appealability
unless “a substantial constitutional issue lurks in the background, and the statutory question is
independently substantial.” Ramunno v. United States, 264 F.3d 723, 725 (7th Cir. 2001)
Case 3:09-cr-30039-JPG Document 166 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
(question of a petition’s timeliness) (citing Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-85).
Snodgrass has not made a showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether his
motion is an unauthorized successive motion or whether any constitutional claims “lurk in the
background” of any non-constitutional issues. Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to issue a
certificate of appealability.
Because Snodgrass refers to potential civil rights violations in his motion, the Court
DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send him a Civil Complaint for Civil Rights Violation or Other
Civil Claims by a Person in Custody form along with the instructions for completing the form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 12, 2026
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:09-cr-30039-JPG Document 166 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>