Opinion
2:92-cr-118-FtM-29DNF.
October 14, 2011
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant Joseph Hall's Motion for Dismissal or to Quash Indictment for Fraud; Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and In-Personam Jurisdiction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1867(e) Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) 60(b)(6) (Doc. #343) and a supporting Affidavit (Doc. #344), both filed on September 13, 2011.
Defendant Hall asserts that this is an original action under 28 U.S.C. § 1867(e) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) 60(b)(6), and challenges the way in which his indictment was obtained in 1992. Section 1867 does not provide a basis for a free-standing action, and the time to proceed under § 1867 expired long ago. Rule 60(b) does not provide for relief from judgment in a criminal case, but applies only to civil actions, United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 1998), and provide no independent basis for an action challenging a criminal conviction.
A federal court has an obligation to look behind the label of a motion filed by a pro se inmate and determine whether the motion is cognizable under a different remedial statutory scheme. Having done so, the Court finds no other jurisdictional basis upon which it can entertain defendant's motion.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendant Joseph Hall's Motion for Dismissal or to Quash Indictment for Fraud; Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and In-Personam Jurisdiction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1867(e) Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) 60(b)(6) (Doc. #343) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida.