Tommy-James C. Raven III v. State of Oklahoma, et. al.

Filing 21

ORDER denying 20 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 8/16/2016. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

TOMMY-JAMES C. RAVEN, III,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-289-D

ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner=s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 20], filed
August 8, 2016, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). Petitioner, who appears pro se,
seeks relief from the Judgment entered July 20, 2016, granted in favor of the State of
Oklahoma in this civil rights action. Petitioner contends that relief under Rule 60(d)(3)
is appropriate Ato relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding . . . , or to set
aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.@ Motion [Doc. No. 20] at 2. Petitioner argues
that the Court erred in adopting the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 16], finding
that Petitioner sought to overturn his original state conviction, and denying his request for
a writ of coram nobis. See Order [Doc. No. 18] at 2.
Upon consideration of the arguments presented, the Court finds that this Motion is
Petitioner=s latest attempt to challenge his state court conviction. As previously stated by
this Court, Afederal courts have no jurisdiction to issue writs of coram nobis with respect
to state criminal judgments.@ Order [Doc. No. 18] at 2 (quoting R. & R. [Doc. No. 16] at
4); see also Rawlins v. Kansas, 714 F.3d 1189, 1196 (10th Cir. 2013).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner=s Motion for Reconsideration
[Doc. No. 20] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of August, 2016.

2