Court Opinion

ID: 9397578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 17:06:55.780371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:25.957393
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10708         Document: 00516763847             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/25/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10708
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     May 25, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Thomas Reedy,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:00-CR-54-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Thomas Reedy, federal prisoner # 25673-177, filed a notice of appeal
   following the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for
   relief from judgment. The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion as
   untimely.       Reedy argues that a constitutional violation rendered his
   conviction void, and that the time limit for a Rule 60(b) motion therefore did

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10708      Document: 00516763847           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/25/2023

                                     No. 22-10708

   not apply. He has also filed motions to compel and for summary disposition.
   Reedy’s Rule 60(b) motion attacked his convictions on the merits, arguing
   that they were unconstitutional due to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashcroft
   v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), and due to the multiplicity of
   the charges.
          We have a continuing duty to consider, sua sponte, if necessary, the
   basis of the district court’s jurisdiction and this court’s own jurisdiction. See
   Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 n.2 (5th Cir. 1987); Mosley v.
   Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). To the extent that Reedy’s motion
   was an attempt to attack the criminal judgment itself under Rule 60(b), he
   appealed the denial of a “meaningless, unauthorized motion,” United States
   v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994), because the Federal Rules of Civil
   Procedure do not apply to criminal cases. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; Fed. R.
   Civ. P. 81. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, in part, as frivolous. See
   5th Cir. R. 42.2.
          To the extent that Reedy’s Rule 60(b) motion challenged the prior
   denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief, the issuance of a COA is a jurisdictional
   prerequisite. See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 886-88 (5th
   Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Jiminez-Garcia, 951 F.3d 704, 705 (5th
   Cir. 2020). Although Reedy did not expressly request a COA, we construe
   his notice of appeal as such a request. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2).
   However, because the district court did not rule on whether Reedy is entitled
   to a COA, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. Black v. Davis, 902 F.3d 541,
   545 (5th Cir. 2018).
          We decline to remand for a COA ruling because doing so would be
   futile and a waste of judicial resources. United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309,
   310 (5th Cir. 2000). A challenge to the denial of Rule 60(b) relief here would
   be frivolous because the Rule 60(b) motion was indisputably, in reality, an

                                              2
Case: 22-10708      Document: 00516763847          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/25/2023

                                    No. 22-10708

   unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which the district court
   lacked jurisdiction to consider. See United States v. Hernandes, 708 F.3d 680,
   681-82 (5th Cir. 2013); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32 & n.4
   (2005). Therefore, no reasonable jurist could conclude that the district court
   abused its discretion in denying Reedy Rule 60(b) relief. See Hernandez v.
   Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 428 (5th Cir. 2011); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);
   Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000).
          Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED in part as frivolous and in
   part for lack of jurisdiction, and Reedy’s constructive COA request is
   DENIED. See Alvarez, 210 F.3d at 310; see also Black, 902 F.3d at 545;
   Ochoa Canales, 507 F.3d at 886-88. Reedy’s motions to compel and for
   summary disposition are DENIED as moot.

                                             3