United States District Court, E.D. Washington
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
STANLEY A. BASTIAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, ECF
No. 27, and Second Legal Notice of an Active RICO Enterprise,
ECF No. 28. Defendant asks the Court to reconsider its Order
denying Defendant's various motions for post-conviction
relief for lack of jurisdiction. Because Defendant has
identified no valid reason for the Court to reconsider its
previous Order, Defendant's motions are denied.
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not expressly
authorize the filing of motions for reconsideration, the
Ninth Circuit has held that post-judgment motions for
reconsideration may be filed in criminal cases. United
States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1047 n.7 (9th Cir.
2000). “Courts have held that motions for
reconsideration in criminal cases are governed by the rules
that govern equivalent motions in civil proceedings.”
U.S.A. v. Krug, No. CR09-01148-MMM, 2012 WL
12973474, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2012).
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court can grant
relief on a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59 or Rule
60. First, a party may ask the Court to reconsider and amend
a previous order. Fed R. Civ. P. 59(e) offers “an
extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests
of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”
Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir.
2003). A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted when: (1) there is
an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the moving
party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable
evidence; and (3) the motion is necessary to correct manifest
errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based.
Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d
1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). Second, the Court may provide
relief from an order under Rule 60 for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
August 17, 2017, the Court entered an Order denying
Defendant's motions for post-conviction relief. ECF No.
25. Specifically, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction
to hear a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate sentence or
a petition for writ of error coram nobis pursuant to
the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Either motion is
only properly brought in the Court of conviction. It is
undisputed that the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington is not the
court of conviction. Rather, Defendant was convicted in the
District of Nevada. Accordingly, this Court cannot legally
grant the relief that Defendant seeks.
motions, Defendant makes the same arguments that he
previously made to the Court. He has not identified a change
in controlling law or newly discovered evidence. Defendant
likewise has not made a showing that a manifest error
occurred. He has not identified any mistake or fraud or that
the judgment is void or was vacated. A motion for
reconsideration is not the proper vehicle for rehashing
arguments that were previously fully considered. Par
Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Blueline Rental LLC, No.
2:16-cv-0246-TOR, 2017 WL 272901, at *1 (E. D. Wash. March
17, 2017). This Court is not the proper venue for a petition
for writ of error coram nobis. No prejudice exists
and Defendant is free to file his motions in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada.
the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability.
As the Court previously noted, Defendant's motions for
post-conviction relief are properly characterized as a
petition for writ of error coram nobis because
Defendant is no longer serving a sentence and thus, not
eligible for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Because this is not a § 2255 proceeding, a certificate
of appealability is not a prerequisite to appeal.
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 22 (in a § ...