Smith v. United States

Opinion

Case No.: 22cv0798 DMS (BGS) MICHAEL SMITH,

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. DISMISS Defendant. On July 10, 2010, a jury in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky found Plaintiff Michael Smith guilty of multiple counts of mail fraud. United States v. Smith, Case No. 08cr31, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, ECF No. 314. Judgment in that case was entered on July 1, 2011, sentencing Mr. Smith to 120 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Id., ECF No. 669. Mr. Smith was also ordered to make restitution in the amount of $5,506,917.76. Id., ECF No. 825. Mr. Smith appealed his conviction, id., ECF No. 704, and also appealed one of the court’s forfeiture orders. Id., ECF No. 842. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed Mr. Smith’s conviction in a published decision. See United States v. Smith, 749 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2014). Mr. Smith then filed a petition for writ of certiorari, United States v. Smith, Case No. 08cr31, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, ECF No. 877, which was denied. Id., ECF No. 878. Over the course of the next seven years, Mr. Smith, who was then proceeding pro se, began filing numerous motions and other requests in the Eastern District of Kentucky. See, e.g., id., ECF Nos. 882, 891, 895, 904, 911, 914, 920, 929, 930, 931, 933, 939, 945, 949, 951, 954, 955, 959, 960, 965, 977, 981, 982, 991, 997, 1001, 1003, 1006, 1008, 1010, 1013, 1014. When those motions and requests were denied, see, e.g., id., ECF No. 967, 1000, 1005, Mr. Smith filed appeals with the Sixth Circuit, see id., ECF Nos. 953, 973, which appeals were also denied or dismissed. See, e.g., id., ECF Nos. 976, 980, 983, 996, 1012. Mr. Smith also filed at least one additional petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, see id., ECF No. 1073, which was denied on March 28, 2022. See id., ECF No. 1075. Apparently finding no relief in those courts, Mr. Smith, again proceeding pro se, filed the present case in this Court on May 31, 2022. His initial filing, which is described as a Complaint on the Docket, is actually titled, “Rule 60(d)(3), Petition to VACATE CRIMINAL CASE, #3:08-cr-31 (JMH), for FRAUD ON THE COURT.” (ECF No. 1.) The case now comes before this Court on the United States’ motion to dismiss. The United States raises several arguments in its motion, the most persuasive being that this Court is the wrong venue for Plaintiff’s request. See Young v. Burlingham, No. 222CV0590JAMCKDPS, 2022 WL 2345679, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2022) (noting “that Federal Rule 60(b)(6) only permits a court to grant a litigant relief from judgment previously entered by the same court. It does not provide a method of challenging another court's judgment.”); Active Way Int'l Ltd. v. Smith Elec. Vehicles Corp., No. 17-MC-80118- SK, 2017 WL 6813186, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2017) (citations omitted) (stating “Rule 60 does not allow an attack on a judgment from another court.”) The Court also notes that “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to criminal cases.” United States v. Andrade-Larrios, 39 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 1994). For both of these reasons, the Court grants the motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly, and close this case. Dated: November 4, 2022 em Dh an Yn. Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court