United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
Reidinger United States District Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's
“Motion to Submit These Documents Purtaining [sic] to
This Case as Filed with Other Governing Bodies” [Doc.
85] and the Defendant's “Motion to Set Aside
Judgment as Void for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction under
Rule 60(b)(4), Article 1 § 8 Clause 17, Article 6 §
2, Tenth Amendment, Denial of This Motion for Any Reason is
an Impeachable Offense” [Doc. 86].
first Motion, the Defendant seeks to have filed in this
action copies of a “Petition for Impeachment” and
a “Victim Affidavit” that the Defendant has filed
with the United States Senate and the Supreme Court of the
United States, respectively. [Doc. 85]. There is no basis in
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for the
Defendant's motion. The Defendant's motion is
patently frivolous and therefore will be denied.
second motion, the Defendant moves to have his criminal
judgment set aside pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. 86]. As the Court explained
in a prior Order denying a similar motion filed by the
Defendant [Doc. 46], Rule 60(b) does not provide a vehicle by
which the Defendant can challenge his criminal judgment.
See United States v. Grapes, 408 F.App'x 766,
767 (4th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Moreover, the type of
relief that the Defendant seeks in his Rule 60(b) motion is
identical to the relief that could be obtained through a
successful Section 2255 proceeding. Accordingly, the Court
must treat his Rule 60(b) motion as a motion brought pursuant
to Section 2255. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S.
524, 531 (2005); United States v. Winestock, 340
F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). The Defendant has provided no
evidence that he has secured authorization from the Fourth
Circuit to file a second § 2255 motion as required by 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h). Therefore, this Court is without
jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Defendant's
second motion, and it will be dismissed.
to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, the
Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability as the
Defendant has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a
constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003)
(in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district
court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable
or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000) (holding that when relief is denied on procedural
grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the
correctness of the dispositive procedural ruling is
debatable, and that the petition states a debatably valid
claim of the denial of a constitutional right).
Defendant has filed numerous frivolous filings since his
conviction in 2008. [See Docs. 34, 38, 39, 43, 45,
52, 54, 55, 57, 64, 66, 68, 69, 70, 75]. Litigants do not
have an absolute and unconditional right of access to the
courts in order to prosecute frivolous, successive, abusive
or vexatious actions. See Demos v. Keating, 33
F.App'x 918, 920 (10th Cir. 2002); Tinker
v. Hanks, 255 F.3d 444, 445 (7th Cir. 2002);
In re Vincent, 105 F.3d 943, 945 (4th
Cir. 1997). District courts have inherent power to control
the judicial process and to redress conduct which abuses that
process. Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d
583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001).
Defendant is hereby informed that future frivolous filings
will result in the imposition of a pre-filing review system.
Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812,
818 (4th Cir. 2004); Vestal v. Clinton,
106 F.3d 553, 555 (4th Cir. 1997). If such a
system is placed in effect, pleadings presented to the Court
which are not made in good faith and which do not contain
substance, will be summarily dismissed as frivolous. See
Foley v. Fix, 106 F.3d 556, 558 (4th Cir.
1997). Thereafter, if such writings persist, the pre-filing
system may be modified to include an injunction from filings.
In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1262
(2d Cir. 1984).
THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's “Motion to
Submit ...” [Doc. 85] is DENIED, and the
Defendant's “Motion to Set Aside Judgment
...” [Doc. 86] is DENIED AND DISMISSED.
FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules
Governing Section 2255 Cases, the Court declines to issue a
certificate of appealability.
 Defendant's argument is that
Congress has no authority to enact any criminal legislation
except as pertains to actions taken on federal lands and in
the District of Columbia, citing Art I, §8 cl.17
(Article I pertains to Congressional power, not this
Court's jurisdiction). This narrow reading of Art. I,
§8 was rejected by the Supreme Court nearly two hundred
years ago. McCullouch v. Maryland, 4 U.S. (Wheat.)
316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), and in literally thousands ...