USA v. Ruiz

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-40076 Affirmed, 09-40077 Affirmed.] Judge: EGJ , Judge: EMG , Judge: CES. Mandate pull date is 11/15/2010 [09-40076, 09-40077]

USA v. Ruiz

Doc. 0

Case: 09-40076

Document: 00511242322

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/23/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-40076 S u m m a r y Calendar September 23, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. M I G U E L RUIZ, JR., D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a ls from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 2:05-CR-643-2 U S D C No. 2:08-CV-77

B e fo r e JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* M ig u e l Ruiz, Jr., federal prisoner # 57857-179, appeals the denial of his p o s t judgment motion to amend the judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 m o t io n and the denial of his amended § 2255 motion, wherein he sought to c h a lle n g e his conviction of possession with intent to distribute 4.83 kilograms of c o c a in e . This court granted Ruiz a certificate of appealability on the following is s u e s : (1) whether the district court erred by denying his motion under Federal

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-40076

Document: 00511242322 Page: 2 No. 09-40076

Date Filed: 09/23/2010

R u le of Civil Procedure 59(e) and (2) whether the district court erred by denying R u iz 's motion to amend his § 2255 motion. R u iz argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his R u le 59(e) motion because the motion was timely. He also argues that his m o t io n should have been granted because the district court did not understand h is § 2255 filings due to his mental deficiency and that his mental deficiency p r e v e n t e d him from understanding and complying with the § 2255 procedures. Ruiz has not demonstrated that the district court's denial of his Rule 59(e) m o t io n was based upon manifest errors of law or fact or presented newly d is c o v e r e d evidence. Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 4 ). Accordingly, he has not demonstrated that the district court abused its d is c r e t io n by denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. See Midland W e s t Corp. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 911 F.2d 1141, 1145 (5th Cir. 1990). R u iz also argues that the district court erred by denying his post judgment m o t io n to amend his § 2255 motion. He argues that his motion should have been g r a n t e d , pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, in the interests of ju s tic e because his prior pleadings reflect that he was unable to understand the p r o c e e d in g s without assistance and that the argument he raised in his motion t o amend, that counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure his mental c o m p e t e n c e prior to his conviction and sentencing, related back to his original § 2255 filings. Ruiz is not entitled to relief under Rule 15. See Rosenzweig v. A z u r ix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th Cir. 2003). R u iz 's post judgment motion to amend his § 2255 motion constituted an u n a u t h o r iz e d successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Orozco-Ramirez, 2 1 1 F.3d 862, 867 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Cain, 137 F.3d 234, 235 (1998)); c f. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32 (2005). Accordingly, Ruiz has not d e m o n s t r a t e d that the district court erred by denying his motion. T h e judgment is AFFIRMED.

2