Harvey v. USA

Filing 13

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh Denying 3 Motion to Vacate ; Denying 12 Motion to Vacate ; Denying 1 Motion to Vacate. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

EDWARD AARON HARVEY, JR.,
Petitioner,

13
v.

14
15

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Case No. 05-CR-00373-LHK-1
Case No. 16-CV-02674-LHK
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
ORIGINAL, AMENDED, AND SECOND
AMENDED RULE 60 MOTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 143, 147, 151
(05-CR-00373-LHK-1)1
Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 3, 12
(16-CV-02674)

Petitioner Edward Aaron Harvey, Jr. (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, has filed (1) a
motion for relief “pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3),” ECF No. 143; (2) an amended motion for
relief “pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3),” ECF No. 147; and (3) a “second amended motion for
relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3).” ECF No. 151. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
construes Petitioner’s motions as “second or successive” motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
and therefore DENIES Petitioner’s motions for lack of jurisdiction because the Ninth Circuit

24
Court of appeals has not authorized Petitioner to file any second or successive § 2255 motions.
25
26
27
28

1

All docket entries in this Order are to Case No. 05-CR-00373-LHK unless otherwise noted.
1

Case No. 05-CR-00373-LHK-1
Case No. 16-CV-02674-LHK
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL, AMENDED, AND SECOND AMENDED RULE 60 MOTIONS

1

I.

A. Petitioner’s Guilty Plea and Sentencing

2

U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte presided over Petitioner’s underlying criminal case

3
4
5

and first § 2255 motion. This case was reassigned to the undersigned judge because Judge Whyte
assumed inactive status on November 1, 2016.
Pursuant to a written plea agreement executed on April 16, 2007, Petitioner pleaded guilty

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

to (1) one count of advertisement of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B)
(“Count One”); (2) one count of transporting and shipping visual depictions of minors engaging in
sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1) (“Count Two”); and (3) one count
of possessing visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) (“Count Three”). See ECF No. 67 at 1–3. Thereafter, Judge Whyte
sentenced Petitioner to 144 months of imprisonment on each of Counts One and Two, and 120
months of imprisonment on Count Three, with all prison sentences to run concurrently. See ECF
No. 85 at 2. Judge Whyte entered judgment against Petitioner on November 2, 2007. See id.
B. Petitioner’s First § 2255 Motion

15

On August 29, 2009, even though Petitioner had not yet filed a motion to set aside, correct,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

BACKGROUND

or vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Petitioner filed an application with the Ninth
Circuit for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See ECF No. 102-1. On December
23, 2009, the Ninth Circuit noted that “Petitioner has not filed a previous motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255,” and therefore construed Petitioner’s application as a § 2255 motion that “must be filed in
the district court in the first instance.” ECF No. 102. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit directed
Petitioner’s construed § 2255 motion (Petitioner’s “first § 2255 motion”) to be transferred “to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California.” Id. Thereafter, on January 4,
2010, Petitioner’s first § 2255 motion was entered on the docket for Case No. 05-CR-00373. See
id.
Judge Whyte did not order the government to respond to Petitioner’s first § 2255 motion.
Instead, on January 25, 2011, Judge Whyte dismissed Petitioner’s first § 2255 motion “pursuant to
2
Case No. 05-CR-00373-LHK-1
Case No. 16-CV-02674-LHK
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL, AMENDED, AND SECOND AMENDED RULE 60 MOTIONS

1

Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts,”

2

which allows district courts to dismiss a § 2255 motion without ordering the government to

3

respond “[i]f it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior

4

proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief.” ECF No. 126. In his January 25, 2011

5

dismissal order, Judge Whyte first noted that it was “difficult to follow [Petitioner’s] reasoning

6

and figure out what he claims the government did that entitles him to relief,” and then stated that

7

Petitioner appeared to be arguing that “(1) his sentence was imposed in violation of the

8

Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the court was without jurisdiction to impose such

9

sentence; and (3) the sentence is subject to collateral attack.” Id. at 1–2. Finally, Judge Whyte
concluded that Petitioner’s first § 2255 motion should be dismissed “pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts” because

12

Petitioner merely “cite[d] a multitude of legal propositions” without “offer[ing] any facts

13

justifying relief.” Id. at 2.

14
15

C. Petitioner’s Subsequent Rule 60 Motions
On May 16, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion “pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3), for an

16

order setting aside the judgment entered in [his underlying criminal] case on or about October 30,

17

2007.” ECF No. 143 (“Mot.”) at 1. Petitioner’s motion (the “original Rule 60 motion”) is based

18

on the appointment affidavit of the Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) who prosecuted

19

Petitioner on behalf of the government in Petitioner’s underlying criminal case, Shawna Yen.

20

Petitioner obtained a copy of Ms. Yen’s appointment affidavit through a Freedom of Information

21

Act (“FOIA”) request and attached it to his Rule 60 motion. See Mot. ¶¶ 12–14; id. Exh. A. In

22

the original Rule 60 motion, Petitioner points to several aspects of Ms. Yen’s appointment

23

affidavit that are purportedly indicative of wrongdoing by the government. First, Petitioner draws

24

attention to the fact that, while Ms. Yen’s appointment date is listed as September 22, 2002, the

25

date on which Ms. Yen took her oath of office and executed an affidavit stating that she would not

26

participate in any strike against the federal government is February 11, 2003—almost five months

27
28

3
Case No. 05-CR-00373-LHK-1
Case No. 16-CV-02674-LHK
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL, AMENDED, AND SECOND AMENDED RULE 60 MOTIONS

1

after Ms. Yen’s listed appointment date. Mot. Exh. A. Second, Petitioner points out that the

2

position to which Ms. Yen was appointed is listed as “Shawna H. Yen,” and not “Assistant United

3

States Attorney.” Id.

4

Petitioner argues in his original Rule 60 motion that these features of Ms. Yen’s

5

appointment affidavit show that Ms. Yen “was not authorized to represent the United States in”

6

the underlying “criminal action against” Petitioner. Mot. ¶ 28. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that

7

Ms. Yen was not authorized to prosecute Petitioner on behalf of the government because her

8

appointment affidavit demonstrates that she (1) failed to file her oath of office “within 30 days

9

after the effective date of [her] appointment,” as required by 5 U.S.C. § 3332; and (2) failed to
execute “within 60 days after accepting the office” of AUSA an affidavit affirming that she will

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

not strike against the federal government, as required by 5 U.S.C. § 3333(a). Mot. ¶¶ 21–23.

12

Further, Petitioner argues that even if Ms. Yen “did file an oath of office within 30 days of her

13

alleged appointment or execute an affidavit [regarding striking against the federal government]

14

within 60 days of accepting office, [Ms. Yen’s] appointment, oath of office, and affidavit [are] still

15

fatally defective because she cannot be lawfully appointed to the position of ‘Shawna Yen’

16

(herself) and legally represent the United States under color of law as an AUSA.” Id. ¶ 24.

17

Petitioner’s ultimate contentions in his original Rule 60 motion are that because Ms. Yen

18

was allegedly “not authorized to represent the United States in” the underlying “criminal action

19

against” Petitioner, (1) “the District Court was without jurisdiction over the [underlying criminal]

20

case because the United States was not a party to the prosecution,” Mot. ¶ 25; (2) “the Court was

21

without subject-matter jurisdiction” over the underlying criminal case, id.; and (3) “Kevin V.

22

Ryan, United States Attorney, together with Shawna Yen, purporting to be a lawfully appointed

23

AUSA, committed fraud on this Court.” Id. ¶ 28. Petitioner argues that his “judgment of

24

conviction should be set aside” based on these grounds. Id.

25

On December 1, 2016, Petitioner filed an “amended motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P.

26

60(d)(3).” ECF No. 147 (“AM”) at 1. This motion (the “amended Rule 60 motion”) is materially

27
28

4
Case No. 05-CR-00373-LHK-1
Case No. 16-CV-02674-LHK
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL, AMENDED, AND SECOND AMENDED RULE 60 MOTIONS

1

identical to Petitioner’s original Rule 60 motion—it seeks “relief from” Judge Whyte’s

2

“November 2, 2007” “order entering judgment of conviction” against Petitioner based on the same

3

grounds and the same features of Ms. Yen’s appointment affidavit. AM at 1.
Thereafter, on July 12, 2017, Petitioner filed a “second amended motion for relief under

4
5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (d)(3).” ECF No. 151 (“SAM”) at 1. In this motion (the “second amended Rule

6

60 motion”), Petitioner purports to seek “relief from” Judge Whyte’s January 25, 2011 “order

7

denying [Petitioner’s] 25 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” Id. However, like his other Rule 60 motions,

8

Petitioner’s second amended Rule 60 motion seeks relief based on Ms. Yen’s purportedly

9

unauthorized representation of the government in Petitioner’s underlying criminal case, as
demonstrated by Ms. Yen’s appointment affidavit. See SAM at 2–3. Specifically, in his second

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

amended Rule 60 motion, Petitioner argues that Ms. Yen’s allegedly unauthorized representation

12

of the United States amounted to “fraud committed on the court.” Id. at 1. Further, Petitioner

13

asserts that this alleged “fraud was material to” Judge Whyte’s dismissal of Petitioner’s first §

14

2255 motion “because the Court was without jurisdiction over the parties [and] the subject-matter

15

ab initio”—that is, from the very beginning of the government’s criminal prosecution of

16

Petitioner. SAM at 1.
On August 14, 2017, the Court issued an order directing the government to respond. ECF

17
18

No. 156. Thereafter, government filed its Opposition on October 30, 2017, ECF No. 163

19

(“Opp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply on November 29, 2017. ECF No. 164 (“Reply”).

20

II.

21

DISCUSSION
The government raises a number of arguments in its Opposition to Petitioner’s Rule 60

22

motions. Specifically, the government argues that Petitioner’s Rule 60 motions should be denied

23

because (1) Petitioner “waived his right to file collateral attacks” in his plea agreement, Opp. at 3;

24

(2) the Court should construe Petitioner’s motions as “having been made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

25

2255,” and should therefore deny Petitioner’s motions for lack of jurisdiction because Petitioner

26

“did not first obtain permission from the” Ninth Circuit to file the motions, id. at 3–5; (3)

27
28

5
Case No. 05-CR-00373-LHK-1
Case No. 16-CV-02674-LHK
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL, AMENDED, AND SECOND AMENDED RULE 60 MOTIONS

1

Petitioner’s motions were “not filed within one year of the date that [Petitioner] became aware of

2

the facts supporting” the motions, id. at 5–6; and (4) “courts have long held that acts of public

3

officers are not voided because of the lack of an oath.” Id. at 6–7.

4

The Court agrees with the government’s second argument. For the reasons stated below,

5

the Court construes Petitioner’s original, amended, and second amended Rule 60 motions as

6

second or successive § 2255 motions, and thus the Court must deny these motions for lack of

7

jurisdiction. As a result, the Court need not address the government’s other arguments.

8

A convicted federal criminal defendant may, subject to certain time limits, file a motion to

9

vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and may claim “the right to
be released” in the § 2255 motion based “upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction

12

to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or

13

is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). However, “[a] petitioner is

14

generally limited to one motion under § 2255, and may not bring a ‘second or successive motion’

15

unless it meets the exacting standards of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).” United States v. Washington, 653

16

F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011). 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides that “[b]efore a second or

17

successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall

18

move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the

19

application.” Section 2255(h) provides further:

20
21
22
23
24

A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a
panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain—(1) newly discovered evidence
that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made
retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Reading these statutes together, the Ninth Circuit has determined that “[a]

25
second or successive § 2255 petition may not be considered by the district court unless petitioner
26
27
28

obtains a certificate [from the Ninth Circuit] authorizing the district court to do so.” Alaimalo v.
6
Case No. 05-CR-00373-LHK-1
Case No. 16-CV-02674-LHK
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL, AMENDED, AND SECOND AMENDED RULE 60 MOTIONS

1
2

United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)).
When a convicted federal criminal defendant who has already litigated a § 2255 motion

3

files a subsequent motion for relief from a judgment or order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

4

Procedure 60, the district court may, in some circumstances, be required to construe the

5

defendant’s Rule 60 motion as a second or successive § 2255 motion, which in turn would deprive

6

the district court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the motion if the defendant has not obtained the

7

necessary authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Specifically, when a defendant who has already

8

litigated a § 2255 motion subsequently files a Rule 60 motion, the district court must construe the

9

Rule 60 motion as a second or successive § 2255 motion if the Rule 60 motion “does not
challenge the integrity of the federal [§ 2255] habeas proceeding, but rather challenges his original

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

conviction and sentence.” Todd v. United States, 2012 WL 5351845, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 29,

12

2012); see Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005) (stating that a Rule 60 motion need not

13

be construed as a § 2255 motion if it attacks “some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas

14

proceedings”). Relatedly, when a defendant who has already litigated a § 2255 files a subsequent

15

Rule 60 motion alleging “fraud on the court,” the district court need not construe the motion as a

16

second or successive § 2255 motion if “‘the alleged fraud on the court relates solely to fraud

17

perpetrated on the federal habeas court’” during the adjudication of the defendant’s prior § 2255

18

motion. United States v. Montalvo, 2013 WL 5705711, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2013) (quoting

19

Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2006)). On the other hand, “[i]f the alleged

20

fraud on the habeas court includes or implies fraud in the underlying [criminal] proceeding, ‘then

21

the [Rule 60] motion will ordinarily be considered a second or successive [§ 2255] petition.’” Id.

22

(quoting Spitznas, 464 F.3d at 1216)).

23

In the instant case, as discussed above, Petitioner previously filed a § 2255 motion in 2010,

24

and Judge Whyte dismissed that motion in 2011. ECF No. 126. Further, Petitioner’s original and

25

amended Rule 60 motions do not even mention—let alone “challenge the integrity of”—Judge

26

Whyte’s adjudication of Petitioner’s first § 2255 motion. Todd, 2012 WL 5351845 at *2. Instead,

27
28

7
Case No. 05-CR-00373-LHK-1
Case No. 16-CV-02674-LHK
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL, AMENDED, AND SECOND AMENDED RULE 60 MOTIONS

1

Petitioner’s original and amended Rule 60 motions only “challenge[] [Petitioner’s] original

2

conviction and sentence.” Id. In particular, Petitioner’s original Rule 60 motion requests that this

3

Court “set aside [Petitioner’s] judgment of conviction” in his underlying criminal case, Mot. at 9,

4

and therefore the motion challenges the criminal judgment that Judge Whyte entered against

5

Petitioner on November 2, 2007. See ECF No. 85. Similarly, Petitioner’s amended Rule 60

6

motion seeks relief from Judge Whyte’s “order entering judgment of conviction on November 2,

7

2007.” AM at 1.

8
9

Because Petitioner’s original and amended Rule 60 motions make no mention of
Petitioner’s “federal habeas proceeding”—that is, Judge Whyte’s adjudication of Petitioner’s first
§ 2255 motion—and instead only challenge Petitioner’s “original conviction and sentence,” the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Court must construe Petitioner’s original and amended Rule 60 motions as second or successive §

12

2255 motions. Todd, 2012 WL 5351845 at *2. Further, the Ninth Circuit has not issued any

13

certificates authorizing Petitioner to file these second or successive § 2255 motions. As a result,

14

in the absence of the requisite Ninth Circuit authorization, this Court does not have jurisdiction to

15

consider Petitioner’s original and amended Rule 60 motions, which the Court construes as second

16

or successive § 2255 motions. See Alaimalo, 645 F.3d at 1054 (“A second or successive § 2255

17

petition may not be considered by the district court unless petitioner obtains a certificate [from the

18

Ninth Circuit] authorizing the district court to do so.”).

19

In an apparent attempt to circumvent the jurisdictional bar relating to unauthorized second

20

or successive § 2255 motions, Petitioner employs a different tactic in his second amended Rule 60

21

motion. Specifically, although Petitioner’s second amended Rule 60 motion is based on the same

22

exact purported wrongdoing as Petitioner’s original and amended Rule 60 motions—specifically,

23

Ms. Yen’s allegedly unauthorized prosecution of Petitioner on behalf of the federal government—

24

Petitioner’s second amended Rule 60 motion is different in that it seeks relief from Judge Whyte’s

25

“order denying [Petitioner’s first] 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” SAM at 1. In this way, Petitioner

26

attempts to frame his second amended Rule 60 motion as an “attack[]” on “some defect in the

27
28

8
Case No. 05-CR-00373-LHK-1
Case No. 16-CV-02674-LHK
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL, AMENDED, AND SECOND AMENDED RULE 60 MOTIONS

1

integrity of [his] federal habeas proceedings” in order to protect the motion from being construed

2

as a second or successive § 2255 motion. Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532.

3

However, Petitioner’s transparent attempt to evade the “second or successive” bar is
unavailing, because it is clear that Petitioner’s second amended Rule 60 motion is in substance a

5

challenge to Petitioner’s “original conviction and sentence,” and not to the “integrity of [his]

6

federal habeas proceeding.” Todd, 2012 WL 5351845 at *2. As the Court noted above,

7

Petitioner’s second amended Rule 60 motion is based on the same exact alleged wrongdoing as his

8

original and amended Rule 60 motions—Ms. Yen’s purportedly unauthorized criminal prosecution

9

of Petitioner on behalf of the federal government. See SAM at 2–3. Importantly, this alleged

10

misconduct only occurred during Petitioner’s underlying criminal proceeding, and not during

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

Petitioner’s federal habeas proceeding. Put another way, the central theory of Petitioner’s second

12

amended Rule 60 motion is that Ms. Yen’s allegedly unauthorized prosecution of Petitioner

13

amounted to fraud on the Court by the government, see SAM at 1, but none of that fraud could

14

have possibly been committed by the government during Petitioner’s federal habeas proceeding

15

because the government had no involvement in the adjudication of Petitioner’s first § 2255

16

motion. As the Court explained above, the government did not file any opposition to Petitioner’s

17

first § 2255 motion because Judge Whyte never ordered the government to respond to Petitioner’s

18

first § 2255 motion. Instead, Judge Whyte dismissed Petitioner’s first § 2255 without opposition

19

briefing from the government “pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255

20

Proceedings for the United States District Courts,” which allows district courts to dismiss a § 2255

21

motion without ordering the government to respond “[i]f it plainly appears from the motion, any

22

attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to

23

relief.” ECF No. 126. Thus, because the fraud alleged in Petitioner’s second amended Rule 60

24

motion could not have been committed during Petitioner’s federal habeas proceeding, Petitioner’s

25

second amended Rule 60 motion does not actually “attack[]” any “defect in the integrity of

26

[Petitioner’s] federal habeas proceeding.” Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532. Instead, like Petitioner’s

27
28

9
Case No. 05-CR-00373-LHK-1
Case No. 16-CV-02674-LHK
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL, AMENDED, AND SECOND AMENDED RULE 60 MOTIONS

1

original and amended Rule 60 motions, Petitioner’s second amended Rule 60 motion asserts, for

2

all intents and purposes, a “defect in the integrity of” his underlying criminal case based on Ms.

3

Yen’s allegedly unauthorized criminal prosecution of Petitioner on behalf of the United States. Id.

4

As such, Petitioner’s second amended Rule 60 motion is properly construed as a second or

5

successive § 2255 motion.

6

Indeed, this point is underscored by Petitioner’s own representations in his second

7

amended Rule 60 motion. In that motion, Petitioner asserts that the fraud stemming from Ms.

8

Yen’s allegedly unauthorized prosecution of Petitioner “was material to [Judge Whyte’s] ruling on

9

Petitioner’s [first] § 2255 motion . . . because the Court was without jurisdiction over the parties or
the subject-matter ab initio”—that is, from the very beginning of the government’s criminal

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

prosecution of Petitioner. SAM at 1. In other words, according to Petitioner, the only relevance

12

that the government’s alleged fraud has to Petitioner’s federal habeas proceeding is that because of

13

the government’s alleged fraud, the Court never had jurisdiction to enter a criminal judgment

14

against Petitioner in the first place, and therefore Petitioner should never have had to challenge

15

any criminal judgment via a federal habeas proceeding. Thus, it is clear that the government’s

16

alleged fraud only directly implicates the integrity of Petitioner’s underlying criminal case; any

17

effect that the alleged fraud had on the integrity of Petitioner’s subsequent federal habeas

18

proceeding was entirely derivative of its impact (if any) on Petitioner’s underlying criminal

19

proceeding. As a result, in substance, Petitioner’s second amended Rule 60 motion challenges

20

Petitioner’s “original conviction and sentence,” but not “the integrity of [Petitioner’s subsequent]

21

federal habeas proceeding.” Todd, 2012 WL 5351845 at *2.

22

Further, and in any event, even if the fraud alleged in Petitioner’s second amended Rule 60

23

motion does implicate the integrity of Petitioner’s federal habeas proceeding to some extent, it is

24

beyond dispute that the alleged fraud does not “‘relate[] solely to fraud perpetrated on the federal

25

habeas court.’” Montalvo, 2013 WL 5705711 at *2 (quoting Spitznas, 464 F.3d at 1216). Instead,

26

the fraud alleged in Petitioner’s second amended Rule 60 motion also—indeed, primarily—

27
28

10
Case No. 05-CR-00373-LHK-1
Case No. 16-CV-02674-LHK
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL, AMENDED, AND SECOND AMENDED RULE 60 MOTIONS

1

“includes or implies fraud in [Petitioner’s] underlying [criminal] proceeding” because it stems

2

from Ms. Yen’s allegedly unauthorized prosecution of Petitioner on behalf of the federal

3

government. Id. As a result, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s second amended Rule 60

4

motion is properly “‘considered a second or successive [§ 2255] petition.’” Id. (quoting Spitznas,

5

464 F.3d at 1216). Additionally, as the Court explained above, because the Ninth Circuit has not

6

issued a certificate authorizing Petitioner to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, this Court

7

lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s second amended Rule 60 motion. See Alaimalo, 645

8

F.3d at 1054 (“A second or successive § 2255 petition may not be considered by the district court

9

unless petitioner obtains a certificate [from the Ninth Circuit] authorizing the district court to do
so.”).

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

III.

12

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s original, amended, and second

13

amended Rule 60 motions for lack of jurisdiction.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: August 30, 2018
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

11
Case No. 05-CR-00373-LHK-1
Case No. 16-CV-02674-LHK
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL, AMENDED, AND SECOND AMENDED RULE 60 MOTIONS