UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

AARON CORNELL ROBINSON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 1 :24 CV 238 CDP ) GREGORY HANCOCK, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On January 15, 2025, I denied and dismissed petitioner’s habeas petition under

as successive. ECF 3, 4. Petitioner has now filed two motions in this closed case seeking “a written indication the Court would grant or entertain a motion for relief from Judgment” and a motion for summary judgment. ECF 6, 9. Both of these motions are meritless and will be denied. As for the first motion, it is denied to the extent that it seeks an advisory ruling. To the extent the first and second motions are construed together liberally to seek relief from the January 15, 2025, Order of Dismissal, they are also denied as petitioner presents no grounds for relief. This case remains a successive habeas petition as petitioner continues to seek relief on grounds not presented in petitioner’s first habeas petition (Case Number 4: 17 CV 4 HEA). As such, petitioner requires, but has not yet obtained, authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Accordingly, this Court remains unable to consider his petition. Finally, I have also considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. To grant a certificate of appealability, the Court must find a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. See Tiedeman vy. Benson,

(8th Cir. 1997). A substantial showing is a showing that issues are debatable

among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings. Cox v. Norris,

(8th Cir. 1997) (citing Flieger v. Delo,

(8th Cir. 1994)). Because petitioner has not made such a showing, I will not issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for written indication the Court would grant or entertain a motion for relief from judgment [6] and motion for summary judgment [9] are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied as petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right.

dbo. CATHERNED PERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 24'" day of September, 2025. _2-