SMITH v. STATE OF FLORIDA et al

Filing 28

ORDER: Petitioner's 27 MOTION to Vacate Void/Judgment/Order and Release Petitioner According to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) is DENIED. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 12/28/2012. (jws)

Download PDF
Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION TED SMITH, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-265-MP-GRJ WILLIAM S. BAXTER, NFETC Administrator, and FRANK E. SHEFFIELD, Circuit Judge, Gadsden County, Respondents. _____________________________/ ORDER Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s “Motion to Vacate Void/ Judgment/ Order and Release Petitioner According to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60(b)(4).” (Doc. 27.) Petitioner purports to request relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), and asserts that the judgment in his state case was void because the state court failed to obtain witnesses and prohibited witnesses and Petitioner from speaking. For the following reasons, the motion is due to be denied. Initially, the Court notes that Petitioner has presented an identical claim in the instant motion as he presented in the original § 2254 petition. Accordingly, the Court will construe the purported motion under Rule (60)(b)(4) as a motion to amend Petitioner’s pending motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-531 (2005). Because the proposed amendment would offer no new legal arguments or evidence, Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend is due to be denied. Page 2 of 2 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: Petitioner’s “Motion to Vacate Void/ Judgment/ Order and Release Petitioner According to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60(b)(4),” Doc. 27, is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of December 2012. s/ Gary R. Jones s/GaryR.Jone GARY R. JONES United States Magistrate Judge Case No: 1:11-cv-265-MP-GRJ

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?