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)

Download PDF
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?