Ziglar v. United States of America (INMATE3)
ORDER; that on or before October 18, 2010, the petitioner may file a reply to the response filed by the government. Signed by Honorable Susan Russ Walker on 9/27/2010. (jg, )
Z i gl a r v. United States of America (INMATE3)
Do c. 86
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION J O E CARROLL ZIGLAR, P e titio n e r, v. U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, R e sp o n d e n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No. 2:07cv632-MEF (WO)
ORDER P u r s u a n t to the orders of this court, the United States has filed a response (Doc. No. 8 4 ) addressing (1) whether the petitioner's instant motion constitutes a successive motion u n d e r 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the claims in the motion are successive within the meaning of 2 8 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) whether any claims in the petitioner's motion are properly raised u n d e r Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), and, if so, whether those claims entitle the petitioner to any relief. In its response, the government argues that the petitioner's allegation of fraud against the c o u rt in the form of a conspiracy between the United States Attorney, the probation office, a n d his own defense counsel is merely an attempt on the petitioner's part to relitigate the c o m p e te n c y issues raised in his initial § 2255 motion, placed before this court at a hearing o n the § 2255 motion, and considered by this court in its denial of the petitioner's claims of in e f fe c tiv e assistance of counsel. (Doc. No. 84 at 3-4.) The government further argues that th e pleadings and record in this case establish that the petitioner was in possession of his
a tto rn e y's notes that he claims demonstrate fraud prior to the hearing on his § 2255 motion a n d that the notes were actually used by his counsel at that hearing on the § 2255 motion. T h e government contends that because there was no fraud as alleged by the petitioner, his c la im s are not properly raised under Rule 60(b) and his motion should be construed as a su c c e ss iv e § 2255 motion, which is should be dismissed because the petitioner has failed to o b ta in the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit permitting this court to consider the c la im s within his motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, it is O R D E R E D that on or before October 18, 2010, the petitioner may file a reply to the re sp o n se filed by the government. D o n e this 27 th day of September, 2010.
/s/Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER C H IE F UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?