(2255-00-cr-038) Knight v. USA, No. 1:2006cv01230 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff's Independent Action Pursuant To Rule 60(b), Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, And Directing Clerk Of Court To Enter Judgment For The United States And To Close This Case, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 2/13/2009. CASE CLOSED (Scrivner, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WADE KNIGHT, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14 15 16 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-F-06-1230 OWW/DLB MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S INDEPENDENT ACTION PURSUANT TO RULE 60(b), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES AND TO CLOSE THIS CASE 17 18 On September 8, 2006, Plaintiff Wade Knight, a federal 19 prisoner proceeding in pro per currently incarcerated at Atwater 20 USP, has filed an Independent ACTION Pursuant To The Saving 21 Clause in Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Seeking 22 Relief From The District Court November 1, 2002 Judgment Denying 23 his 28 U.S.C. 2255, Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence. 24 In May, 2000, Wade Knight was convicted in the United States 25 District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 26 2:00-cr-00038-HB, of conspiracy to interfere with interstate 1 1 commerce by robbery and interference with interstate commerce. 2 Knight was sentenced to 235 months incarceration, three years of 3 supervised release, restitution, and special assessments. 4 Knight s conviction and sentence were affirmed. 5 Knight,, 281 F.3d 225 (3rd Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 947 6 (2002). 7 sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 in the Eastern District of 8 Pennsylvania, which was denied on November 1, 2002, the Eastern 9 District of Pennsylvania District Court declining to issue a United States v. Knight filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct 10 certificate of appealability. 11 issue a certificate of appealability.1 12 The Third Circuit declined to Knight asserts that he is entitled to bring this action in 13 the Eastern District of California because an independent action 14 under Rule 60(b) may be brought in a court other than the court 15 that issued the contested order, citing Morrel v. Nationwide Mut. 16 Fire Ins. Co., 188 F.3d 218, 223 (4th Cir.1999). 17 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) 18 as allowing him to bring this independent action more than one 19 year after the denial of his Section 2255 motion by the Eastern 20 District of Pennsylvania. 21 Knight cites In support of this action, Knight avers: (2) I was tried and convicted in the United States District for The Eastern District of 22 23 24 25 26 1 The Court may take judicial notice of matters of public record, including duly recorded documents, and court records available to the public through the PACER system via the internet. See Fed. R. Evid. Rule 201(b); United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876, fn.1 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 1 Pennsylvania [sic] .... 2 (3) I attest that by way of the Maryland Public Information Act ... I found the attached Newly Evidence [sic] that wasn t provided to me in my discovery by the U.S. Prosecution. 3 4 (4) I attest that Detective Ruby Ernest Gary and the U.S. Prosecution had committed Fraud Upon The Court on May 20, 2000 by alleging that petitioner had waived his Constitutional rights found under Miranda. 5 6 7 (5) I attest that I am only attacking the November 1, 2002 Judgment denying my 28 U.S.C. section 2255. 8 9 10 Knight has twice filed independent actions for fraud under 11 Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in the Eastern 12 District of Pennsylvania, based on the same averments of fraud 13 upon the Court. 14 Knight challenged his 2000 criminal conviction based on the same 15 averments of fraud. 16 Order filed on January 20, 2006. 17 CV-06-0994, Knight challenged the November 2002 denial of his 18 Section 2255 motion based on the same averments of fraud. 19 Knight s independent action was dismissed by Order filed on March 20 22, 2006. 21 In Knight v. United States, No. CV-06-0045, Knight s independent action was dismissed by In Knight v. United States, No. Knight s independent actions for fraud were denied by the 22 Eastern District of Pennsylvania District Court before Knight 23 filed the independent action in the Eastern District of 24 California. 25 authority to hear Knight s independent action purporting to 26 challenge the denial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of Whether or not this Court has jurisdiction or 3 1 his Section 2255 motion need not be addressed under these 2 circumstances. 3 court to the District Court in which he was convicted and which 4 denied his Section 2255 motion. 5 be addressed to the Third Circuit. 6 For the reasons stated: 7 1. Knight has presented his claims of fraud upon the Knight s remedies, if any, must Wade Knight s independent action for fraud upon the 8 court pursuant to Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 9 is DISMISSED; 10 2. 11 THE UNITED STATES and to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 The Clerk of the Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT FOR Dated: 668554 February 13, 2009 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4
]]>
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.
