govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_23-cv-01116-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
 EASTERN DIVISION 
 
IRVING BERRY, ) 
 ) 
Petitioner, )  No. 4:23- CV-1116-RLW 
 ) 
v. ) 
 ) 
TERI VANDERGRIFF, ) 
 ) 
Respondent. ) 
 
 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
This matter is before the C ourt on petitioner Irving Berry’s petition for writ of habeas 
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.  
Petitioner challenges his parole release date arising out of his September 13, 1979 
convictions of first degree robbery, rape, and kidnapping in the Circuit Court for the City of St. 
Louis. Petitioner  attaches to his petition documents showing that he was terminated from 
Missouri’s Sexual Offender Program (MOSOP), Phase I, because he would not admit guilt. See 
ECF No. 1 -5. Because of his termination from MOSOP, petitioner was not granted an earlier 
release date. See  ECF No. 1-9. Petitioner’s § 2254 petition seeks immediate release from his 
incarceration at the Farmington Correctional Center.1 Id. 
The Court’s records show that petitioner previously brought a motion for relief under 28 
U.S.C. § 2254, which the Court denied on the merits. See Berry v. Armontrout , No. 4:88-CV-765 
 
1 Petitioner cites to Missouri Revised Statute § 536.014, which concerns administrative procedure and 
review, to state that requiring him to admit guilt violates state law. See ECF No. 1 -7. He cites another 
Missouri Statute for the same premise, § 547.035 R.S. Mo., which concerns postconviction DNA testing. 
See ECF No. 1-8. Neither statute is relevant to this § 2254 action. 
 
Case: 4:23-cv-01116-HEA     Doc. #:  11     Filed: 03/12/24     Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
(E.D. Mo.).2 Petitioner also brought two prior habeas petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which 
were dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. See Berry v. Rowley, No. 4:99-CV-1713-LOD 
(E.D. Mo. Apr. 28, 2000) and Berry v. Rowley, No. 4:99-CV-1250-LOD (E.D. Mo. Sept. 8, 1999). 
In addition, petitioner has brought four  successive habeas petiti ons in this Court, which were 
dismissed because they lacked authorization from the Court of Appeals. See Berry v. Kemna, No. 
4:16-CV-385-NCC (E.D. Mo. Jul. 22, 2016); Berry v. Kemna, No. 4:01-CV-1086-ERW (E.D. Mo. 
Aug. 22, 2001)  Berry v. Rowley, No. 4:00- CV-1110-LOD (E.D. Mo. Nov. 30, 2000) ; Berry v. 
Purkett, No. 4:97-CV-00568-TIA (E.D. Mo. May 22, 1997). 
Title 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(3)(A) provides that “[b]efore a second or successive application 
permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate 
court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” There is no 
indication that the C ourt of A ppeals has certified the instant habeas application as required by 
§ 2244(b)(3)(A). As such, this Court lacks authority to grant petitioner the relief he seeks. 
Accordingly, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
§2254 is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED  because petitioner has not been aut horized by 
the Court of Appeals to bring this successive action as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).   
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED as moot. [ECF Nos. 
4, 5, 9, and 10] 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue. 
  
 
2 Because this case predates the Court’s electronic filing system, it is not available on CM/ECF. The case 
is discussed in Berry v. Kemna, No. 4:16-CV-385-NCC (E.D. Mo. Jul. 22, 2016). 
Case: 4:23-cv-01116-HEA     Doc. #:  11     Filed: 03/12/24     Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. 
 
    
  RONNIE L. WHITE 
  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
Dated this 12th day of March, 2024.  
 
Case: 4:23-cv-01116-HEA     Doc. #:  11     Filed: 03/12/24     Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight