From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bailey v. U.S. Marshal Service

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Dec 5, 2008
Civil Action No. 08-0283 (CKK), Civil Action No. 08-0754 (CKK) (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 08-0283 (CKK), Civil Action No. 08-0754 (CKK).

December 5, 2008


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


By Order entered November 4, 2008, the Court dismissed plaintiff's case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plantiff has moved for reconsideration. His motion will be treated as one for relief from judgment or order under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and will be denied.

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment [or] order . . . for . . . (1) mistake . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Here, the plaintiff argues that the Court is mistaken about the law, and that his arrest by one sovereign pursuant to a valid arrest warrant issued by that sovereign while he was in custody under a valid order from another sovereign violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. In support of his position, he cites U.S. v. Stephens, 315 F. Supp. 1008 (W.D. Okla. 1970), for the proposition that "in order for a U.S. Marshal to lawfully execute a federal arrest while a Defendant is `in custody' [by order of a different sovereign], a U.S. Marshal[] must have a writ to accompany the facially valid arrest warrant, otherwise the arrest becomes unlawful." (Pl.'s Mot. for Recons. at 2.) Plaintiff misconstrues Stephens. The court in Stephens determined that persons already in the custody of the United States "may be transferred from the district of detention to the district of trial by writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum," without a removal proceeding under Rule 40 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Stephens, 315 F. Supp. at 1011. Plaintiff's use of Stephens to support his argument is unavailing and his argument is without merit.

Because the plaintiff has neither demonstrated that the Court made a mistake of law nor provided any reason justifying relief from operation of the Order, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to set aside the Order dismissing this case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted be is DENIED.


Summaries of

Bailey v. U.S. Marshal Service

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Dec 5, 2008
Civil Action No. 08-0283 (CKK), Civil Action No. 08-0754 (CKK) (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 2008)
Case details for

Bailey v. U.S. Marshal Service

Case Details

Full title:COURTNEY ANTHONY BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE et…

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Dec 5, 2008

Citations

Civil Action No. 08-0283 (CKK), Civil Action No. 08-0754 (CKK) (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 2008)

Citing Cases

Bailey v. U.S. Marshal Service

After considering plaintiff's arguments under the standards for Rule 60(b)(1) (for mistake) and (b)(6) (for…

Bailey v. U.S. Marshal Service

The court concludes that the plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits of his underlying action, a…