Murillo v. United States

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 PETER SANTOS MURILLO, CASE NO. C22-0230JLR 11 Petitioner, ORDER v. 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 13 Respondent. 14

15 Before the court is pro se Petitioner Santos Peter Murillo’s “motion for relief from 16 judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).” (Mot. (Dkt. # 1).) Mr. 17 Murillo asks the court for relief from the judgment of conviction in his criminal matter 18 and requests a new trial or resentencing based on newly discovered evidence. (Id. at 1; 19 see United States v. Murillo, No. CR16-0113JLR (W.D. Wash.).) 20 The court construed Mr. Murillo’s Rule 60(b) motion as a second or successive 28 21 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and referred it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 22 certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). (See 3/8/22 Order (Dkt. # 4)); see United 1 States v. Lopez, 577 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that absent certification by 2 the Ninth Circuit, “the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider [a] second or successive

3 application” for relief under § 2255). On May 20, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued an order 4 in which it (1) held that this court correctly construed Mr. Murillo’s Rule 60(b) motion as 5 a disguised § 2255 motion and (2) denied Mr. Murillo’s request for authorization to file a 6 second or successive § 2255 motion. (9th Cir. Order (Dkt. # 5).) As a result, this court 7 lacks jurisdiction to consider Mr. Murillo’s § 2255 motion, see Lopez, 577 F.3d at 1061, 8 and DENIES the motion (Dkt. # 1) with prejudice.

9 Dated this 3rd day of June, 2022. 10 A 11 12 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22