Kee v. USA
Filing
15
ORDER granting 6 Motion to Seal. Clerk of Court must file under seal Respondent's Response (Doc. 7). FURTHER ORDERED denying 2 Amended Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 96 in CR 94-266). This case is dismissed without prejudice. The Cl erk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. FURTHER ORDERED denying 10 Motion to Know Prosecution's Credentials FURTHER ORDERED denying 11 Motion for Writ of Coram Nobis FURTHER ORDERED denying 13 Motion for Demand of Relief Under Fe d. R. Civ. P. Rule 8. FURTHER ORDERED The Clerk of Court must provide Movant with a form approved by the Ninth Circuit for filing an Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition or Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2255. See Document for Details. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/14/13. (CR-94-266-PCT-GMS) (Attachments: # 1 9CCA Form)(MAP)
Kee v. USA
Doc. 15
1
WO
KM
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
United States of America,
10
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
No. CV 13-8131-PCT-GMS (MEA)
CR 94-0266-PCT-GMS
Michael Augustine Kee,
13
ORDER
Defendant/Movant.
14
15
Movant Michael Augustine Kee, who is confined in the Federal Correctional
16
Institution Safford in Safford, Arizona, has filed a pro se “Motion for Relief From
17
Judgment Pursuant F.R.Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(4) and (6)” and an Amended Motion for Relief
18
From Judgment. Movant argues that the Court was without jurisdiction to try him in CR
19
94-266-PCT-GMS and that his conviction should therefore be vacated.
20
I.
Government’s Motion to Seal
21
On June 7, 2013, Respondent filed a Response to the Amended Motion for Relief
22
from Judgment (Doc. 7) and a Motion to Seal (Doc. 6). Because Respondent’s Response
23
contains Movant’s personal information, the Court will grant the Motion to Seal.
24
II.
Amended Motion for Relief From Judgment
25
An amended motion supersedes an original motion. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
26
F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d
27
1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court treats the original motion as
28
nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262.
Dockets.Justia.com
1
The Court will summarily deny Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Relief and
2
dismiss this action. Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not provide
3
Movant with an avenue for challenging the judgment of conviction in his criminal case.
4
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (“These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and
5
proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81.”).
6
A motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is for a person “claiming the right to
7
be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the
8
Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to
9
impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by
10
law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, in this
11
case, the Court will not construe Movant’s claims as filed pursuant to § 2255 because
12
Movant has already filed an action under § 2255 challenging his conviction and sentence
13
in CR 94-266. The prior motion was denied on May 31, 2005 (Doc. 83 in CR 94-266)
14
and judgment was entered on the same date (Doc. 84 in CR 94-266).
15
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), before a second or successive § 2255 motion
16
may be filed in the district court, a movant must first obtain an order from the United
17
States Court of Appeals authorizing the district court to consider the motion. The Court
18
of Appeals will not issue an order authorizing a successive motion unless the motion
19
meets the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(A) and (B). Movant has presented no
20
such order from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As a courtesy to Movant, the
21
Court will direct the Clerk of Court to provide Movant with a form approved by the
22
Ninth Circuit for filing an Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition or
23
Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2255.
24
25
The Court will deny as moot Movant’s remaining pending Motions (Docs. 10, 11,
and 13).
26
IT IS ORDERED:
27
(1)
28
Respondent’s June 7, 2013 Motion to Seal (Doc. 6) is granted; the Clerk of
Court must file under seal Respondent’s Response (Doc. 7).
-2-
1
(2)
The Amended Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 2 in CV 13-8131
2
and Doc. 96 in CR 94-266) is denied and the civil action opened in connection with this
3
Motion (CV 13-8131-PCT-GMS (MEA)) is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of
4
Court must enter judgment accordingly.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
(3)
Plaintiff’s June 24, 2013 “Motion to Know Prosecution’s Credentials”
(Doc. 10) is denied.
(4)
Movant’s June 24, 2013 Motion for Writ of Coram Nobis (Doc. 11) is
denied.
(5)
Movant’s “Motion for Demand of Relief Under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8”
(Doc. 13) is denied.
(6)
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, in the
12
event Movant files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability
13
because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See
14
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
15
(7)
The Clerk of Court must provide Movant with a form approved by the
16
Ninth Circuit for filing an Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition or
17
Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2255.
18
Dated this 14th day of August, 2013.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?