United States v. Demjanjuk ( 2005 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0305n.06
Filed: April 20, 2005
No. 03-3773
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
v. ) DISTRICT OF OHIO
)
JOHN DEMJANJUK, ) ORDER
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
BEFORE: COLE and CLAY, Circuit Judges, and COLLIER, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. This is the fourth opinion issued by this Court in Defendant-Appellant John
Demjanjuk’s attempt to prevent the revocation of his citizenship. See United States v. Demjanjuk,
367 F.3d 623, 627 (6th Cir. 2004) (cataloging decisions). The relevant procedural history to the
instant appeal is as follows. On February 21, 2002, the district court revoked Demjanjuk’s
citizenship. See United States v. Demjanjuk, No. 1:99CV1193, 2002 WL 544622 (N.D. Ohio Feb.
21, 2002) (findings of fact and conclusions of law); United States v. Demjanjuk, No. 1:99CV1193,
2002 Wl 544623 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 21, 2002) (supplemental opinion). Demjanjuk filed an appeal of
that decision on May 13, 2002, and this Court affirmed the district court in United States v.
Demjanjuk, 367 F.3d 623. While that case was on appeal, Demjanjuk filed a motion for Fed. R. Civ.
*
The Honorable Curtis L. Collier, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, sitting by designation.
No. 03-3773
United States v. Demjanjuk
P. 60(b) relief in the district court on February 12, 2003. The district court denied the motion for
lack of jurisdiction on May 1, 2003. Demjankjuk now appeals that denial. We review a district
court’s denial of Rule 60(b) relief for an abuse of discretion. Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Trustees
of the United Mine Workers of Am. Combined Benefit Fund, 249 F.3d 519, 524 (6th Cir. 2001).
Prior case law clearly establishes that the district court did not abuse its discretion. As we
have previously held:
The filing of an appeal with this Court generally divests a district court of
jurisdiction over the case. In the district court’s discretion, however, it may enter an
order stating that it is disposed to grant a Rule 60(b) motion, which would allow the
requesting party to move this Court to remand the case, thereby once again vesting
jurisdiction in the district court . . . . [T]he district court is under no obligation to
issue such an order, and in fact [this appeal was characterized] as a ‘procedural
misstep’ at oral argument. We agree. The district court did not abuse its discretion
in refusing to rule on . . . [a] Rule 60(b) motion following . . . [an] appeal to this Court.
Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, 274 F.3d 377, 403 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal
citations omitted). Since Demjanjuk moved for Rule 60(b) relief after he filed a notice of appeal,
the district court had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion, and was under no obligation to issue
an order stating it was disposed to grant the Rule 60(b) motion.
In any event, this Court finds that the merits of Demjanjuk’s instant Rule 60(b) motion are
not well-taken. Demjanjuk seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(1) (mistake), Rule 60(b)(2) (newly
discovered evidence) and Rule 60(b)(6) (other reasons justifying relief). Demjanjuk argues that a
document known as the “Vanya letter” contains a signature that is inconsistent with his signature
on his Trawinki Prison Camp identity card. However, Demjanjuk has had the relevant documents
in his possession since 1981, during his first defense of the government’s attempt to revoke his
-2-
No. 03-3773
United States v. Demjanjuk
citizenship. Accordingly, the time has long passed for him to seek relief under either Rule 60(b)(1)
and Rule 60(b)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (noting that (b)(1) and (b)(2) motions must be made
within a year from entry of judgment). Nor can Demjanjuk assert that there are“extraordinary or
exceptional circumstances” sufficient to support relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Blue Diamond Coal
Co., 249 F.3d at 524. Demjanjuk’s prior failure to claim that the Vanya letter undermined the
credibility of other documents, given his two-decade possession of these documents, simply cannot
be considered an “unusual and extreme situation[] where principles of equity mandate relief.” Id.
(internal quotes removed) (emphasis in original).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motion.
-3-