Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05867/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05867-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Because of Judge Crocker’s retirement, this action has been 1

assigned to Judge Coyle.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN HENRY, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-01-5867 MDC

(No. CR-F-98-5121 MDC)

ORDER DEEMING PETITIONER'S

MOTION UNDER RULE 60(b)(4),

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE TO BE A SECOND OR

SUCCESSIVE MOTION FOR RELIEF

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

AND DISMISSING DEEMED 

MOTION FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION 

On April 26, 2006, Ryan Henry, proceeding in pro per, filed

a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and Rule 12(h)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

contending that this court “exceeded it’s subject matter

jurisdiction the court failed to have jurisdiction in the above

case moreover, the judgment was imposed in violation of law, and

the defect making the judgment void. [sic]”1

Case 1:01-cv-05867-MDC Document 4 Filed 04/28/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

By Indictment filed on April 2, 1998, the Grand Jury charged

that petitioner

beginning on or about September 18, 1998 and

continuing to on or about October 3, 1996, in

the County of Kern, State and Eastern

District of California, did solicit, command,

induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade

another person to engage in conduct

constituting a felony that has the use,

attempted use, or threatened use of physical

force against property or against the person

of another in violation of the laws of the

United States, to wit the murder of a local

law enforcement officer aiding a federal

criminal investigation, with the intent that

the other person engage in such conduct, in

violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Sections 373 and 1121.

Petitioner, who was represented by counsel, proceeded to jury

trial and was convicted. Petitioner was sentenced on February

22, 1999 to 240 months in custody and three years of supervised

release. Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Ninth Circuit

on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. The Ninth

Circuit affirmed the conviction on April 3, 2000. 

On July 10, 2001, petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set

aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, raising

as grounds for relief ineffective assistance of counsel by

counsel’s advisement to reject the Government’s plea offer, by

misrepresenting the maximum sentence and the consequences of

going to trial, and by failing to argue against a two-level

enhancement for an aggravated role at sentencing. Petitioner

also alleged that his sentence was improperly enhanced in

violation of his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments

Case 1:01-cv-05867-MDC Document 4 Filed 04/28/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey. By Order filed on February

11, 2002, petitioner’s Section 2255 motion was denied. By Order

filed on April 29, 2002, petitioner’s request for a certificate

of appealability was denied. The Ninth Circuit denied

petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability by Order

filed with this court on February 28, 2003 and denied

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of that denial by Order

filed with this court on April 28, 2003.

Petitioner’s instant motion is filed in the criminal action

and makes no reference to the previously filed and denied Section

2255 motion. As noted, petitioner’s instant motion is based on

Rules 12(h)(3) and 60(b)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Petitioner cannot proceed in the criminal action pursuant to

Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b) does

not apply to obtain relief from a final judgment in a criminal

action. See United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365 (11 Cir. th

1998); 12 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 60.02 (Matthew Bender 3rd

ed.). For the same reason, petitioner cannot proceed in the

criminal action pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See United States v. Mitchell, 405 F.Supp.2d 602

(D.Md. 2005).

Under the AEDPA, a petitioner is precluded from filing a

“second or successive” petition for relief pursuant to Section

2255 in the absence of certification by the appropriate Court of

Appeals. A Rule 60(b) motion filed in connection with a prior

judgment denying a Section 2255 motion is not to be treated as

Case 1:01-cv-05867-MDC Document 4 Filed 04/28/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

second or successive motion if it does not assert or reassert

claims of error in the petitioner’s conviction. See Gonzalez v.

Crosby, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 2651 (2005). However, if a

petitioner seeks to assert or reassert claims challenging the

validity of his conviction, the motion is in substance of

successive Section 2255 petition although labeled a Rule 60(b)

motion. See id., at 2647. 

Here, petitioner contends that this court did not have

jurisdiction to convict him in the criminal action because the

Indictment failed to allege the essential elements of the crimes

of which he was convicted. As noted, petitioner did not

previously raise this claim on appeal or in his Section 2255

motion. Therefore, the court concludes that petitioner’s Rule

60(b) motion is a second or successive Section 2255 motion. 

Consequently, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the

merits of this motion. United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664

(9 Cir. 1998). Petitioner first must apply to the Ninth th

Circuit Court of Appeals and receive authorization to file this

motion.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Petitioner’s motion for relief pursuant to Rules

12(h)(3) and 60(b)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is

deemed to be a second or successive motion for relief pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2255 and is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

///

///

Case 1:01-cv-05867-MDC Document 4 Filed 04/28/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

668554Dated: April 27, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05867-MDC Document 4 Filed 04/28/06 Page 5 of 5