Webb v. United States of America (INMATE 3), No. 2:2018cv00841 - Document 20 (M.D. Ala. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying petitioner David Webb's 19 MOTION for Rule 60(b) relief, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/15/19. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Webb v. United States of America (INMATE 3) Doc. 20 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION DAVID WEBB, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18cv841-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is petitioner David Webb’s “Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief,” filed on June 12, 2019. On September 27, 2018, Webb, a federal inmate at the Maxwell Federal Prison Camp in Montgomery, Alabama, filed with this court a self-styled petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. orders by this petition on amended, Webb guilty-plea court, October Webb 12, an amended 2018. In the validity challenged conviction filed and sentence Pursuant to his § 2241 petition of his imposed as 2018 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for inducement of another to travel in Dockets.Justia.com interstate commerce in the execution of a scheme and artifice to violation defraud of conviction 18 and that U.S.C. sentence § person 2314. were of Webb void and property, claimed that he in his was entitled to immediate release because (1) the federal district courts, including the court in which he was convicted and sentenced, are not lawfully established by Congress; (2) the United States suffered no “injury in fact” from his alleged crime and thus lacked standing to prosecute him; and (3) his guilty plea was entered under duress in violation of his due-process rights. Amended Petition (doc. no. 7) at 1–3. Because Webb’s claims challenged the validity of his conviction and sentence and fell squarely within the realm of injuries addressed by motions to vacate under 28 U.S.C. self-styled § § 2241 2255, this petition court must be found that considered his as a motion to vacate under § 2255. See Order (doc. no. 8); Recommendation (doc. no. 12). And because venue and 2 jurisdiction for actions considered under § 2255 lie only in the district of conviction, this court transferred Webb’s case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. See Recommendation (doc. no. 12); Opinion and Order (doc. no. 16). In his “Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief,” Webb again challenges the validity of his conviction and sentence by the Eastern District of Virginia court. He “request[s] relief in the nature of reinstating [his] Habeas Corpus Petition[ ] for the purpose of a hearing as allowed per Constitution and statutory law; finding of facts, and conclusions record[] of granting immediate presented, [his] case supported jurisdiction.” ... release or of ; law and based sentencing entered order off of court’s into of the relief arguments lack of Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief” (doc. no. 19) at 2. 3 Although Webb styles his motion as one for relief under Rule Procedure, requesting 60(b) it is that of the properly his Federal Rules understood original as of Civil a motion self-styled petition be reinstated in this court. § 2241 Webb does not assert any of the grounds for relief contained in Rule 60(b), and once again he presents claims that go to the validity of his conviction and sentence. the Rules of Civil Procedure is an Rule 60 of inappropriate vehicle to challenge a criminal conviction or sentence. See United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998). Further, Webb demonstrates no infirmity in this court’s order transferring his case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District Webb of Virginia challenged his pursuant conviction to 28 and U.S.C. § sentence. challenges are properly brought under § 2255. 1631. Such Section 2255 motions are properly filed only in the court of 4 conviction. Webb simply fails to demonstrate any basis for relief from this court. *** Accordingly, for the reasons indicated above, it is ORDERED that petitioner David Webb’s “Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief” (doc. no. 19) is denied. DONE, this the 15th day of July, 2019. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
