United States v. Lee

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TIJUAN A. LEE, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Date published: Aug 18, 2017

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 10-20128-01-KHV (D. Kan. Aug. 18, 2017)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 10-20128-01-KHV

08-18-2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TIJUAN A. LEE, Defendant.

KATHRYN H. VRATIL United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On July 28, 2017, the Court overruled defendant's motion to reconsider this Court's ruling on his Section 2255 motion and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction his second or successive motion to vacate sentence under Section 2255. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #159) (construing Motion For Fed. Rule Of Civ. Pro. 60(b)(6) Reconsideration To Correct Error In [A] 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Proceeding (Doc. #158) filed March 9, 2017 as motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) and second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). This matter is before the Court on defendant's Amended And Revised Motion For Relief From Judgment Pursuant To Rule 60(b)(6) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure (Doc. #160) filed August 4, 2017, which the Court construes as a motion to amend defendant's earlier motion to reconsider (Doc. #158). For reasons stated below, the Court overrules defendant's motion.

Defendant filed the motion to amend some five months after his original motion and seven days after the Court ruled on his original motion.¹ Because the Court had already ruled on defendant's original motion to reconsider, his motion to amend was moot.²

1 When he mailed the present motion (Doc. #160) on July 31, 2017, defendant apparently had not received the Court's Memorandum And Order (Doc. #159).

2 Even if defendant had filed his motion to amend before the Court had ruled on his motion to reconsider, the motion lacks merit. Defendant's motion to amend does not attempt to alter the substance of the claims in his original motion to reconsider. Defendant's motion to amend simply provides additional support and argument for the claims in his earlier motion (Doc. #158) as supplemented by the memoranda and letters that he filed on March 16, March 27 and April 6, 2017. See Doc. ##153-57. --------

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's Amended And Revised Motion For Relief From Judgment Pursuant To Rule 60(b)(6) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure (Doc. #160) filed August 4, 2017 is OVERRULED.

Dated this 18th day of August, 2017 at Kansas City, Kansas.

s/ Kathryn H. Vratil

KATHRYN H. VRATIL

United States District Judge