Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JACKSON VITAL, Defendant-Appellant.
This appeal concerns the denial of a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 that was mistakenly filed in a criminal action. Jackson Vital, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his Rule 60 motion. It is clear that Vital intended to file the motion in his proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Vital v. United States, 1:14-cv-23421 (S.D. Fla.). The motion's opening paragraph challenges the district court's “previous decision on the Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255,” and argues that the district court failed to consider his objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. But because his Rule 60 motion listed only the related criminal case, United States v. Vital, 1:12-cr-20074 (S.D. Fla.), it was docketed in the criminal case, as opposed to Vital's § 2255 case. In the criminal case, the district court ruled on the merits of Vital's Rule 60 motion, denying his request for relief from judgment because the court had considered Vital's objections to the report and recommendation. The district court also noted that Rule 60(b) does not apply in criminal cases. This appeal followed.
The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of Vital's Rule 60 motion. As we have previously stated, “Rule 60(b) simply does not provide for relief from judgment in a criminal case.” United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1365–66 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Vital's Rule 60 motion was docketed only in his criminal action, so the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider it in that case. See id. In light of the district court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it erred in reaching the merits of Vital's Rule 60 motion. We therefore vacate the district court's order and remand with instructions to deny Vital's Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Vital is free to file a new Rule 60 motion in his § 2255 action in the district court.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
PER CURIAM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-17056
Decided: December 07, 2017
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)