Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01016/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01016-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL PULIDO-ROMERO, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-1016 REC

(No. CR-F-03-5373 REC) 

ORDER DENYING “(AMENDMENT

&/or SUPPLEMENTAL TO)

(August 5, 2005, Motion to

Dismiss) MOTION TO

DISMISS/VOID JUDGEMENT FOR

LACK OF TERRITORIAL AND/OR

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION,

(F.R.C.P. Rule 60(b)(4)-(6)”

(Doc. 76)

On August 5, 2005, petitioner Miguel Pulido Romero,

proceeding in pro per, filed a “Motion to Dismiss or Review to

Adjust Sentence, For Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction.” 

By Order filed on August 16, 2005, the court ruled in

pertinent part:

1. Petitioner is hereby notified that the

court finds that the instant motion should be

recharacterized as a motion for relief

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner may

withdraw the motion if he does not wish to

pursue relief under Section 2255. Should

Case 1:05-cv-01016-REC Document 4 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 3
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

petitioner choose to withdraw the motion, he

must file a notice of withdrawal of the

motion within 30 days of the filing date of

this order. If petitioner fails to file the

notice of withdrawal within 30 days, the

motion shall be adjudicated as a motion for

relief under Section 2255.

2. If petitioner decides to proceed pursuant

to Section 2255, he must file an amended

Section 2255 motion within 30 days of the

filing date of this order setting forth all

claims upon which he bases relief, the facts

upon which he relies in contending that the

claims in the Section 2255 motion are not

time-barred and/or that petitioner is

entitled to equitable tolling. Failure to

timely comply will result in the dismissal of

the Section 2255 motion as time-barred.

On September 9, 2005, petitioner filed a pleading captioned

“(AMENDMENT &/or SUPPLEMENTAL TO) (August 5, 2005, Motion to

Dismiss) MOTION TO DISMISS/VOID JUDGEMENT FOR LACK OF TERRITORIAL

AND/OR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, (F.R.C.P. Rule 60(b)(4)-(6)”. 

Other than the change of the wording of the caption of the motion

and the addition of the reference to Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, petitioner’s motion is identical in all respects

to the motion filed on August 5, 2005. Petitioner did not comply

in any way with the court’s August 16, 2005 Order. However,

because of petitioner’s reference to Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, and because of petitioner’s failure to allege

facts from which it may be inferred that a motion under Section

2255 is not time-barred or that petitioner is entitled to

equitable tolling, the court concludes that petitioner elects not

to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because any such motion is

barred by the one-year limitation period and by the terms of

Case 1:05-cv-01016-REC Document 4 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 3
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

petitioner’s written plea agreement.

Petitioner cannot rely on Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, as the legal and procedural basis for dismissal of the

charges to which he pleaded guilty or for a reduction in his

sentence. Petitioner cannot proceed with this motion pursuant to

Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to criminal cases. See

United States v. Andrade-Larrios, 39 F.3d 986, 988 (9 Cir. th

1994). Challenges to the legality of a conviction or sentence

are brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Petitioner Miguel Pulido-Romero’s “(AMENDMENT &/or

SUPPLEMENTAL TO) (August 5, 2005, Motion to Dismiss) MOTION TO

DISMISS/VOID JUDGEMENT FOR LACK OF TERRITORIAL AND/OR SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION, (F.R.C.P. Rule 60(b)(4)-(6)” is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01016-REC Document 4 Filed 09/20/05 Page 3 of 3