Source: http://ne.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180713_0002873.DNE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 23:10:29+00:00

Document:
DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEBRASKA, and STATE OF NEBRASKA, Respondents.
Petitioner Dukhan Mumin has filed a “Request for Relief of Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(4)” (filing no. 1), which has been docketed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and motions to proceed in forma pauperis (filing nos. 4, 5). I will grant Mumin leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but I will dismiss Mumin's petition for relief upon initial review.
On November 13, 1998, Mumin entered a plea of no contest to the charge of criminal conspiracy to commit forgery in the second degree, a Class III felony, and was convicted and sentenced to ten to fifteen years imprisonment, of which he served nearly eight years. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp.1, 3, 9.) Mumin alleges he unsuccessfully challenged his conviction through a state postconviction motion and a previous federal habeas petition. (Id. at CM/ECF p.1); (see Mumin v. Clarke, Case No. 4:04CV3058 (D. Neb.) (dismissing petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as barred by the statute of limitations)).
Mumin has filed the present action against the Respondents, Douglas County, Nebraska, and the State of Nebraska, asking this court to declare his 1998 conviction void and to set aside his conviction. Mumin claims the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, the judgment-rendering court, lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction to enter the guilty verdict and sentence because the Information charging Mumin failed to set out facts establishing value as required for a charge of forgery in the second degree.
The judgment from which Mumin seeks relief is his 1998 state-court judgment of conviction. It is clear from the form of the petition that Mumin seeks relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a standalone request and has not sought to raise his present request for relief in his closed federal habeas case, 4:04CV3058, which challenged the same judgment of conviction.
Construing Mumin's 60(b)(4) motion as a § 2254 habeas petition,  likewise, affords him no relief. As stated, Mumin unsuccessfully challenged this same judgment of conviction in earlier federal habeas corpus litigation. (See Mumin v. Clarke, Case No. 4:04CV3058 (D. Neb.) (dismissing petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with prejudice)). Thus, Mumin would be required to seek the permission of the Court of Appeals to commence this second action. 28 U.S.C. § 2444(b)(2) & (3)(A). He has not done so, and this matter must be dismissed. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007) (the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain habeas petition since prisoner did not obtain an order authorizing him to file second petition).
1. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (filing nos. 4, 5) is granted and Petitioner is relieved from paying the filing fee.

References: v. 
 § 2254
 § 2254
 v. 
 § 2254
 § 2444
 v.