Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_90-cr-00003/USCOURTS-azd-2_90-cr-00003-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denard Darnell Neal
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

27

28

1The Court notes that the original order regarding these matters

was mistakenly filed with the incorrect date of "17th day of May

2005" instead of "2006." Order (doc. 167). On June 6, 2006, Neal

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Denard Darnell Neal, )

)

Petitioner, ) No. CR-90-03-PHX RCB

)

Vs. ) O R D E R

)

United States of America, )

)

Respondent. ) )

On February 24, 2006, Petitioner Denard Darnell Neal filed an

ex parte motion to vacate void judgment. Mot. (doc. 158). 

Thereafter, on May 3, 2006, Neal filed another ex parte motion

requesting notification of the status of his prior motion to vacate

judgment. Mot. Status (doc. 166). After reviewing Neal's motions,

the Court, on May 17, 2006, issued an order finding no reason for

the motions to be dealt with on an ex parte basis. Order (doc.

167).1

 Accordingly, the Court ordered the Clerk to transmit copies

Case 2:90-cr-00003-RCB Document 178 Filed 08/28/06 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

27

28

filed a motion entitled "Motion for Re-Issue of Court Order Bearing

the Correct Date on Court Order," requesting that the Court amend the

date of its order and re-file it with the correct date. Mot. Amend.

Order (doc. 171). The Court shall grant Neal's motion to amend the

order. 

- 2 -

of the motions to the United States Attorney for appropriate

response. Id. at 2. The Government filed its responses to Neal's

motions on June 6, 2006. (docs. 168 & 169). 

Generally, Neal's motion to vacate the judgment is an attack

on his 1990 criminal conviction. It is not clear to the Court upon

what basis Neal believes his conviction can and should be vacated. 

Neal spends the majority of his motion arguing that the Court lacks

personal and subject matter jurisdiction over him because he was

not provided sufficient service of process, the United States is a

corporate franchise, he was not informed of the "nature or cause"

of the action against him, and because Denard Darnell Neal is a

"fictitious-corporate entity," thus requiring that all dealings

with such entity comply with the Uniform Commercial Code. Mot.

(doc. 158). 

The Court shall construe Neal's filing as a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As such, this petition

was not properly filed. Neal has filed two prior section 2255

petitions and one Rule 60(b) motion which was construed as a

section 2255 petition. (docs. 95, 126, 137 and 147). Section 2255

provides that a second or successive motion made pursuant to that

section must be certified by a panel of the appropriate court of

appeals to contain newly discovered evidence or a new rule of

constitutional law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Until the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals certifies that a second or successive petition may

Case 2:90-cr-00003-RCB Document 178 Filed 08/28/06 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

27

28

- 3 -

be filed, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider Neal's

claims. See United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir.

1998). 

Here, Neal has made no showing that a request for

certification was made or that authorization was granted by the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Consequently, Neal's Ex Parte

Motion to Vacate Void Judgment shall be denied. Since this Court

has now ruled on Neal's Ex Parte Motion to Vacate Void Judgment

(doc. 158), his Ex Parte Motion Requesting Status (doc. 166) is now

moot.

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Neal's Motion for Re-Issue of Court Order

Bearing the Correct Date on Court Order (doc. 171) is GRANTED. The

date of the Court's Order regarding Neal's Ex Parte Motion to

Vacate Void Judgment, Motion to Exclude United States Attorney from

Presenting Argument, Ex Parte Motion Requesting Status, and Motion

to Transport (doc. 167) is amended to read "17th day of May, 2006."

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Neal's Ex Parte Motion to Vacate

Void Judgment (doc. 158) is DENIED.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Neal's Ex Parte Motion Requesting

Status (doc. 166) is DENIED as moot. 

DATED this 24th day of August, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record and Petitioner pro se.

Case 2:90-cr-00003-RCB Document 178 Filed 08/28/06 Page 3 of 3