From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Schuett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Jul 28, 2016
2:14-cr-00364-JAD-GWF (D. Nev. Jul. 28, 2016)

Opinion

2:14-cr-00364-JAD-GWF

07-28-2016

United States of America, Plaintiff v. Clifford James Schuett, Defendant


Order

[ECF Nos. 235, 236, 237]

On April 7, 2015, I sentenced Clifford James Schuett to 75 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to one count of threat to kill or cause damage by explosive. Schuett has now filed a "Motion for a Rule 35," a "Motion in support of Rule 35," and a motion for a hearing on these motions. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 allows a court to correct a sentence that resulted from "arithmetical, technical, or other clear error" within 14 days after sentencing. Schuett's request for relief under Rule 35 is untimely because I sentenced him more than a year ago. Schuett also has not attempted to show that his 75-month sentence resulted from "arithmetical, technical, or other clear error." Accordingly, to the extent Schuett seeks relief under Rule 35, his motion is denied.

ECF No. 175.

ECF No. 235.

ECF No. 236.

ECF No. 237.

Though Schuett's filings are difficult to decipher, it appears that he may actually be attempting to challenge the conditions of his confinement rather than the legality of his sentence. For example, he alleges that he has been assaulted and abused in prison and denied medical treatment. To the extent that Schuett seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement, he is instructed that the proper vehicle for doing so is to file a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not a motion in this closed criminal case. He clearly knows this because he is prosecuting a § 1983 claim in 2:15-cv-00538-LDG-GWF alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. If Schuett wishes to pursue a new, non-duplicative claim regarding his conditions of confinement, he must file a new civil action. Any further motions made in this case attempting to challenge the conditions of his confinement made in this case will be summarily denied.

See ECF No. 236 at 1. --------

Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's Motion for a Rule 35 [ECF No. 235], Motion in support of Rule 35 [ECF No. 236], and Motion for Hearing on Rule 35 Motion [ECF No. 237] are DENIED.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to send to defendant a copy of this order and this court's approved § 1983 form and instructions for the same.

Dated this 28th day of July, 2016.

/s/_________

Jennifer A. Dorsey

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Schuett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Jul 28, 2016
2:14-cr-00364-JAD-GWF (D. Nev. Jul. 28, 2016)
Case details for

United States v. Schuett

Case Details

Full title:United States of America, Plaintiff v. Clifford James Schuett, Defendant

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Jul 28, 2016

Citations

2:14-cr-00364-JAD-GWF (D. Nev. Jul. 28, 2016)