United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEF
Stewart United States District Judge.
Judge Ted Stewart This matter is before the Court on
Petitioner's Motion for Relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds
Petitioner's Motion to be an unauthorized second or
successive § 2255 petition and that it is not in the
interests of justice to transfer the Motion to the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Court will dismiss
this matter for lack of jurisdiction.
April 25, 2012, Petitioner was charged in a three-count
Indictment with possession of marijuana with intent to
distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, and felon in possession of a firearm and
ammunition. The charges against Petitioner stemmed from a
traffic stop conducted on January 24, 2012.
to trial, Petitioner challenged the legality of the stop.
After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Court denied
Petitioner's motion to suppress. The Court concluded that
the officer had a reasonable suspicion that Petitioner had
committed a traffic violation.
appealed, challenging the Court's ruling on the motion to
suppress. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
Court's decision to deny the motion to suppress.
timely filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner
argued, among other things, that the Court's ruling on
the motion to suppress was erroneous. In particular,
Petitioner argued that the suppression order failed to find
or hold that Petitioner impeded traffic in the left lane.
Court rejected Petitioner's argument. The Court noted
that it had found that Petitioner committed a left-lane
violation, which “necessarily included the finding that
Petitioner impeded traffic.” Thus, the Court denied
Petitioner's § 2255 motion and the Tenth Circuit
denied Petitioner's request for a certificate of
appealability. In its order, the Tenth Circuit too noted that
it had concluded that the record supported this Court's
reasonable suspicion determination.
now files the instant Motion. Petitioner argues that the
judgment should be set aside because the Court misconstrued
Utah's left-lane violation statute, which resulted in an
erroneous suppression ruling. Petitioner argues that the
Court erred in not addressing this issue in its previous
Tenth Circuit has provided the “steps to be followed by
district courts in this circuit when they are presented with
a Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas or § 2255
case.” The Court must first determine
“whether the motion is a true Rule 60(b) motion or a
second or successive petition.”
If the district court concludes that the motion is a true
Rule 60(b) motion, it should rule on it as it would any other
Rule 60(b) motion. If, however, the district court concludes
that the motion is actually a second or successive petition,
it should refer the matter to [the Tenth Circuit] for
authorization . . . .
60(b) “motion is a second or successive petition if it
in substance or effect asserts or reasserts a federal basis
for relief from the petitioner's underlying
Conversely, it is a “true” 60(b) motion if it
either (1) challenges only a procedural ruling of the habeas
court which precluded a merits determination of the habeas
application, or (2) challenges a defect in the integrity of
the federal habeas proceeding, provided that such a challenge
does not itself lead ...