Pate v. United States of America (INMATE 3), No. 2:2018cv00840 - Document 21 (M.D. Ala. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that petitioner Frank Edwin Pate's 20 "Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief" is denied. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/15/2019. (cnw, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pate v. United States of America (INMATE 3) Doc. 21 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION FRANK EDWIN PATE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18cv840-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is petitioner Frank Edwin Pate’s “Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief,” filed on June 12, 2019. On September 27, 2018, Pate, 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 petition this on court, October Pate 12, filed 2018. an In Pursuant to amended his § 2241 petition as amended, Pate claimed that his convictions and sentence by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas were void because (1) the federal district courts, including the court in which he was Dockets.Justia.com convicted and sentenced, are not lawfully established by Congress; (2) the United States suffered no “injury in fact” standing from to his alleged prosecute him; crimes and (3) and thus lacked the government’s evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Amended Petition (doc. no. 8) at 1–3. Because Pate’s claims challenged the validity of his convictions and sentence and fell squarely within the realm of injuries addressed by motions to vacate under 28 U.S.C. self-styled § 2255, § 2241 this petition court must be found that considered his as a motion to vacate under § 2255. See Order (doc. no. 9); Recommendation (doc. no. 14). And because venue and jurisdiction for actions considered under § 2255 lie only in the district of conviction, this court transferred Pate’s case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. See Recommendation Opinion and Order (doc. no. 18). 2 (doc. no. 14); In his “Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief,” Pate again challenges the validity of his convictions and sentence by the Eastern District of Texas 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 of law entered into the record[] of [his] case ... ; and order of relief granting immediate release based off of arguments presented, supported or sentencing court’s lack of jurisdiction.” Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief (doc. no. 20) at 3. Although Pate 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 Pate 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 convictions and sentence. 3 Rule 60 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is an 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, Pate demonstrates no infirmity in this court’s order transferring his case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Pate challenged sentence. Such challenges are properly brought under § 2255. Section his conviction and 2255 motions are properly filed only in the court of conviction. Pate simply fails to demonstrate any basis for relief from this court. *** 4 Accordingly, for the reasons indicated above, it is ORDERED that petitioner Frank Edwin Pate’s “Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief” (doc. no. 20) 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.
