UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
IVAN REA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) No. 1:11-cv-01193-JPH-TAB
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
Ivan Rea's motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied on
September 11, 2013. Dkt. 13. Mr. Rea later sought reconsideration of that
Order. Because any motion challenging a conviction or sentence substantively
under § 2255 must be treated as a § 2255 motion, the Court opened a new §
2255 action. Dkt. 34. That case was then dismissed because it was an
unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. Rea v. United States, 1:24-cv-1660-
TWP-CSW. Mr. Rea has since filed additional motions in this case challenging
his conviction and sentence, including a motion for clarification, dkt. 35, and a
motion for nunc pro tunc application of new civil action, dkt. 36. He then filed
a motion to withdraw those motions, dkt. 41, and a motion for the Court to
process a new § 2255 motion, dkt. 43.
The motion to withdraw, dkt. [41], is GRANTED to the extent that the
motions at dkt. [35], and dkt. [36], are WITHDRAWN. The motion for the Court
to process a new § 2255 motion, dkt. [43], is DENIED because this Court does
not have the authority to permit a successive § 2255 motion to proceed. Nunez
v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996) ("No matter how powerful a
petitioner’s showing, only [the appellate] court may authorize the
commencement of a second or successive petition. ... From the district court's
perspective, it is an allocation of subject-matter jurisdiction to the court of
appeals.").
SO ORDERED.
Date: 2/4/2025 Sarma Patrick anton _ tanbor—
James Patrick Hanlon
United States District Judge
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution:
All Electronically Registered Counsel
Ivan Rea
08492-028
USP Hazelton
P.O. Box 2000
Bruceton Mills, WV 26525
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.