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-