Smith v. United States of America
Filing
16
OPINION AND ORDER denying 15 Motion challenging jurisdiction to the judgment rendered as void. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 12/2/2011. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
LAWRENCE SMITH,
Petitioner,
vs.
Case No.
Case No.
2:09-cv-11-FtM-29DNF
2:07-cr-19-FtM-29DNF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
___________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Lawrence
Smith’s “Plaintiff Motion Challenging Jurisdiction to the Judgement
Rendered As Void Pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (2);
(60)(b)(4)”(Cv. Doc. #15; Cr. Doc. #118)1 filed on November 25,
2011.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
I.
On January 17, 2007, a federal grand jury in Fort Myers,
Florida returned a one-count Indictment (Cr. Doc. #3) charging that
on
or
about
October
20,
2006,
in
Collier
County,
Florida,
petitioner Lawrence Smith (petitioner or Smith) possessed with
intent to distribute five grams or more of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, also known as crack
1
The Court will make references to the dockets in the instant
action and in the related criminal case throughout this opinion.
The Court will refer to the docket of the civil habeas case as “Cv.
Doc.”, and will refer to the docket of the underlying criminal case
as “Cr. Doc.”
cocaine,
in
violation
841(b)(1)(B)(iii).
of
21
U.S.C.
§§
841(a)(1)
and
An arrest warrant was issued the same day and
returned executed two days later.
(Cr. Docs. ## 4, 9.)
Upon his
arrest pursuant to the warrant, petitioner appeared before a
magistrate judge on January 22, 2007, for an initial appearance and
counsel was appointed to represent petitioner.
(Cr. Doc. #6.)
On
January 25, 2007, an arraignment and detention hearing were held,
and petitioner was ordered detained pending trial without bail.
(Cr. Docs. ## 11, 12.)
Petitioner was found guilty by a jury on September 12, 2007.
(Cr. Doc. #67.)
On January 22, 2008, petitioner was sentenced to
235 months imprisonment, followed by 48 months of supervised
release (Cr. Doc. #79).
Judgment was entered on January 24, 2008
(Cr. Doc. #80).
A direct appeal was filed, and on October 16, 2008, the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner’s conviction
and sentence.
(Cr. Docs. ## 81, 114.)
Petitioner’s § 2255 motion
was filed on January 7, 2009, and denied on July 22, 2009 (Cv. Doc.
#13).
Petitioner is now before the court challenging its subject
matter jurisdiction to have entered the judgment in the criminal
case. Because petitioner is proceeding pro se, the Court construes
all of his filings liberally.
See Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157,
1160 (11th Cir. 2003).
-2-
II.
Petitioner argues that a federal district court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction because his drug offense was merely a local
crime, and neither Title 18 nor Title 21 can create federal
jurisdiction
without
Establishment
Clause
violating
of
the
Article
Tenth
III
of
Amendment,
the
United
the
States
Constitution, and Article III, Section 2 of the United States
Constitution. Petitioner therefore argues that the judgment in his
criminal case is void.
Although petitioner relies mainly on civil rules of procedure
which are
inapplicable
to
his
criminal
case, the
Court
will
construe his motion liberally because of his pro se status and
assume that subject matter jurisdiction issues can always be raised
by some vehicle.
(2002)(because
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630
jurisdiction
means
the
court’s
statutory
or
constitutional power to adjudicate a case, “defects in subjectmatter jurisdiction require correction regardless of whether the
error was raised in district court.”); United States v. Peter, 310
F.3d 709, 712 (11th Cir. 2002)(jurisdictional error “can never be
waived by parties to litigation.”); United States v. Harris, 149
F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 1998)(jurisdictional defects cannot be
procedurally defaulted).
Subject-matter jurisdiction defines the
court’s authority to hear a given type of case.
-3-
Alikhani v. United
States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000)(quoting United States v.
Morton, 467 U.S. 822, 828 (1984)).
The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power
to create inferior federal courts and determine their jurisdiction.
U.S. Const. art. III, § 1.
Congress has conferred original
jurisdiction of “all offenses against the laws of the United
States”
to
the
federal
district
courts.
18
U.S.C.
§
3231.
Additionally, Congress has created district courts in each state,
including the State of Florida.
It has further divided the state
into three judicial districts and provided that Lee County, Florida
will be in the Middle District of Florida and that court shall be
held inter alia in Fort Myers.
28 U.S.C. § 89.
The one count in petitioner’s Indictment is a drug offense
that is against the laws of the United States.
21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1). Congress has the authority to punish such conduct under
Title 21, United States Code, based upon the Commerce Clause.
United States v. Lopez, 459 F.2d 949 (5th Cir. 1972)2.
The
Commerce Clause authority includes the power to criminalize conduct
which, although not committed while on federal property, has an
actual impact on interstate commerce. United States v. Bernard, 47
F.3d
1101,
1102
(11th
Cir.
1995)(quoting
2
21
U.S.C.
§
801).
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.
1981) (en banc) the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent
all the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to
the close of business on September 30, 1981.
-4-
Therefore, subject matter jurisdiction existed over petitioner’s
case, and this is the beginning and end of the jurisdictional
inquiry.
United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088, 1104 n.18 (11th
Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Petitioner Lawrence Smith’s “Plaintiff Motion Challenging
Jurisdiction to the Judgement Rendered As Void Pursuant to Fed.
Rule Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (2); (60)(b)(4)”(Cv. Doc. #15; Cr. Doc.
#118) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
December, 2011.
Copies:
AUSA
Lawrence Smith
-5-
2nd
day of
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?