Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00223/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00223-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY WAYNE ARNETT, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

JANE A. WALTERS, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-223 REC/LJO

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND

DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

FOR DEFENDANTS (Doc. 15)

On April 19, 2005, the United States Magistrate Judge

recommended that the court dismiss this action without prejudice

on the various grounds set forth in the recommendation.

After receiving extensions of time, plaintiff timely filed

objections to the recommendation.

The court has reviewed the record herein de novo.

The court concludes that the recommendation erroneously

concludes that plaintiff’s action is barred by the statutes of

limitations applicable to the causes of action alleged in the

Complaint. The gravamen of plaintiff’s Complaint is an alleged

Case 1:05-cv-00223-REC-LJO Document 27 Filed 09/08/05 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

conspiracy to fabricate FDIC certificates and a NCUA certificate

of insurance in plaintiff’s criminal trial in 1998, United States

v. Arnett, No. CR-F-95-5287, which trial resulted in plaintiff’s

conviction of seven counts of armed bank robbery in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 2113 and seven counts of use of a firearm during a

crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Plaintiff

appealed those convictions to the Ninth Circuit. By decisions

filed in December, 2003, plaintiff’s convictions of armed bank

robbery were affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, United States v.

Arnett, 2003 WL 23095754 (9 Cir. 2003), but his convictions of th

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) were reversed and remanded for

retrial, United States v. Arnett, 353 F.3d 765 (9 Cir. 2003). th

The mandate was issued on August 4, 2004. Because of Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774

(9 Cir. 1996), plaintiff could not have brought this action th

prior to the rulings on his appeal of the criminal convictions

because his claims did not accure until the rulings by the Ninth

Circuit on appeal. Therefore, the court vacates the

recommendation to the extent that the recommendation concludes

that plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of

limitations.

The court also vacates the recommendation for dismissal to

the extent that the recommendation contends that the Complaint

fails to establish in personum jurisdiction over the named

defendants. A lack of in personum jurisdiction over a party is a

defense pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil

Case 1:05-cv-00223-REC-LJO Document 27 Filed 09/08/05 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

Procedure, which is waived pursuant to Rule 12(h)(1), if not

timely raised. Because none of the defendants have appeared in

this action, the court concludes that the recommendation of lack

of in personum jurisdiction is premature.

The court concurs with the recommendation that the Complaint

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The

court further concludes that plaintiff cannot amend the Complaint

to state a claim. The court takes judicial notice of the record

in United States v. Arnett, No. CR-F-95-5287. During the first

trial, the Government admitted into evidence the certified FDIC

certificates of insured status for the victim banks and the

victim credit union, showing that the deposits were federally

insured on the dates of the robberies. Witnesses from each

financial institution testified that The credit union branch

manager testified that the deposits of the credit union were

insured by the National Credit Union Administration at the time

of the robbery. During the trial leading to plaintiff’s 1998

convictions, plaintiff raised numerous arguments at trial and in

post-trial motions challenging the adequacy of the evidence

concerning the FDIC certificates that the banks were federally

insured. Plaintiff’s objections included the contention that 

the certificates were not admissible because the FDIC cannot

supply certified copies of the original certificates if the FDIC

does not retain the originals, thereby establishing that the

certificates were specifically created for trial. All of

defendant’s challenges to the admissibility and efficacy of this

Case 1:05-cv-00223-REC-LJO Document 27 Filed 09/08/05 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

evidence were rejected by the district court. In affirming

plaintiff’s convictions for armed bank robbery, the Ninth Circuit

ruled in pertinent part:

We also reject Arnett’s claim that the

district court erred by admitting FDIC

certificates into evidence because they doe

not establish that the banks were FDICinsured ... ‘There is no question’ that FDIC

certificates of insurance are sufficient to

establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that

the banks were federally insured at the time

they were robbed ... We hold that the

district court did not abuse its discretion

in admitting the FDIC certificates into

evidence ....

...

The district court did not err in denying

Arnett’s request for a new trial or for

acquittal based on the government’s alleged

prosecutorial misconduct and/or improper or

outrageous misconduct by introducing the FDIC

certificates at trial ... We conclude that

the FDIC certificates were not false and the

government’s use of the FDIC certificates at

trial was proper.

United States v. Arnett, supra, 2003 WL 23095754. Therefore, the

claims made by plaintiff in the Complaint in this action do not

state a claim upon which relief can be granted and cannot be

amended to state a claim.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. The Complaint in this action is dismissed without leave

to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for

defendants.

Case 1:05-cv-00223-REC-LJO Document 27 Filed 09/08/05 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.

Dated: September 7, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00223-REC-LJO Document 27 Filed 09/08/05 Page 5 of 5