USA v. Snodgrass

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN SNODGRASS,
Defendant.
Case No. 09-cr-30039-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendant Steven Snodgrass’s Motion for Review of a
Fundamental Question (Doc. 152), Motion to Challenge the Constitutionality of the Process
(Doc. 154), Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 158), and Motion for Modification of Supervised
Release (Doc. 159). These motions are the newest of several challenges that Snodgrass has made
to his incarceration. The Court has denied all his previous motions for lack of jurisdiction.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Snodgrass’s motions are difficult to read, but the Court summarizes them as follows. His
motion for review of a fundamental question asks the Court to review what he calls a “highly
questionable ruling” made by the Seventh Circuit. He believes that the Court’s review will allow
him to challenge his conviction. He filed a supplement to the motion that alleges his conviction
violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. His motion to challenge constitutionality of process seeks
to challenge the revocation of his home confinement. His motion to appoint counsel and motion
for modification of supervised release argue that his conviction is wrongful for numerous
reasons, including ineffective assistance of counsel and malicious prosecution.
II. 	ANALYSIS
The Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Snodgrass’s motions for two reasons.
Case 3:09-cr-30039-JPG Document 162 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

First, they do not request any relief. Under Article III, Section 2 of the United States
Constitution, the power of the federal judiciary is limited to cases or controversies. Since the
founding, the Supreme Court has maintained the position that the federal judiciary does not have
the authority to provide answers to legal questions that are not the subject of a case or
controversy. See e.g., Letter from John Jay, U.S. C.J., to George Washington, U.S. President, on
the Separation of Powers (Aug. 8, 1793) (on file with the Nat’l Archives). A proper motion
“shall state its grounds with particularity and shall set forth the relief sought.” SDIL-LR 7.1(a).
Since the merge of law and equity, courts have only been empowered to grant legal or equitable
relief. Snodgrass’s motions fail to present a case or controversy, and therefore, are outside the
Court’s Article III power.
Second, the motions are an attempt by Snodgrass to vacate his sentence, which makes
them § 2255 motions. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531 (2005); see United States v. Scott,
414 F.3d 815, 816 (7th Cir. 2005). These are not Snodgrass’s first § 2255 motions. See e.g.,
Snodgrass v. United States, No. 3:12-cv-00050-JPG (S.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2013); Snodgrass v.
United States, No. No. 3:12-cv-00050-JPG (S.D. Ill. May 15, 2015). For the Court to consider
successive petitions, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals must certify the successive petitions
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). It has not done so. As such, the Court
does not have jurisdiction to entertain the pending § 2255 motions. Since the Court finds that it
does not have jurisdiction over Snodgrass’s motions, it DISMISSES Defendant Steven
Snodgrass’s Motion for Review of a Fundamental Question (Doc. 152), Motion to Challenge the
Constitutionality of the Process (Doc. 154), Motion for to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 158), and
2
Case 3:09-cr-30039-JPG Document 162 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
Motion for Modification of Supervised Release (Docs. 158, 159).
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 Snodgrass. A certificate of appealability is required to
appeal from the dismissal of an unauthorized second or successive collateral attack. Sveum v.
Smith, 403 F.3d 447, 448 (7th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). 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 v. Cahill-
Masching, 246 F.3d 1036, 1045 (7th Cir. 2001). To make such a showing, the petitioner must
“demonstrate that reasonable jurists could debate whether [the] challenge in [the] habeas petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issue presented was adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Ouska, 246 F.3d at 1046; accord Buck v. Davis, 580
U.S. 100, 115 (2017); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S. 322, 327 (2003). The Court finds that
Snodgrass has not made such a showing. As such, it DECLINES to issue a certificate of
appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	November 20, 2025
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Case 3:09-cr-30039-JPG Document 162 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>