Self v. USA

Filing 43

ORDER denying 42 Defendant's Motion. See PDF for details. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/28/16.(DXD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

United States of America,

12

CV13-08199-PCT-DGC (JFM)
CR10-08036-PCT-DGC

Plaintiff/Respondent,

10
11

No.

ORDER
v.
Richard Larry Self,
Defendant/Movant.

13
14

Defendant Richard Larry Self has filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil

15

Procedure 60(b)(6). The motion raises many issues presented before, including attacks

16

on the warrants in this case and allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and

17

vindictiveness. The Court views this as a second and successive § 2255 motion over

18

which it lacks jurisdiction.

19

Even if the Court were to consider the motion on the merits, it would be denied. A

20

motion under Rule 60(b)(6) “must be made within a reasonable time.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

21

60(c)(1). Defendant was convicted and sentenced more than five years ago. The issues

22

he raises were apparent at the time. He has not brought this motion within a reasonable

23

time.

24

In addition, Rule 60(b)(6) motions are used “sparingly as an equitable remedy to

25

prevent manifest injustice.” United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d

26

1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). To receive relief under the rule, a party must demonstrate

27

“extraordinary circumstances which prevented or rendered him unable to prosecute [his

28

case].” Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended on

1

denial of reh’g and reh’g en banc (Apr. 24, 2002) (citing Martella v. Marine Cooks &

2

Stewards Union, 448 F.2d 729, 730 (9th Cir.1971) (per curiam)). Defendant has not done

3

so.

4

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion (Doc. 42) is denied.

5

Dated this 28th day of December, 2016.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-