1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 22cv0798 DMS (BGS) MICHAEL SMITH, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS 14 UNITED STATES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On July 10, 2010, a jury in United States District Court for the Eastern District of 19 Kentucky found Plaintiff Michael Smith guilty of multiple counts of mail fraud. United 20 States v. Smith, Case No. 08cr31, United States District Court for the Eastern District of 21 Kentucky, ECF No. 314. Judgment in that case was entered on July 1, 2011, sentencing 22 Mr. Smith to 120 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Id., ECF No. 669. 23 Mr. Smith was also ordered to make restitution in the amount of $5,506,917.76. Id., ECF 24 No. 825. Mr. Smith appealed his conviction, id., ECF No. 704, and also appealed one of 25 the court’s forfeiture orders. Id., ECF No. 842. The United States Court of Appeals for 26 the Sixth Circuit affirmed Mr. Smith’s conviction in a published decision. See United 27 States v. Smith, 749 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2014). Mr. Smith then filed a petition for writ of 28 1 certiorari, United States v. Smith, Case No. 08cr31, United States District Court for the 2 Eastern District of Kentucky, ECF No. 877, which was denied. Id., ECF No. 878. 3 Over the course of the next seven years, Mr. Smith, who was then proceeding pro 4 se, began filing numerous motions and other requests in the Eastern District of Kentucky. 5 See, e.g., id., ECF Nos. 882, 891, 895, 904, 911, 914, 920, 929, 930, 931, 933, 939, 945, 6 949, 951, 954, 955, 959, 960, 965, 977, 981, 982, 991, 997, 1001, 1003, 1006, 1008, 1010, 7 1013, 1014. When those motions and requests were denied, see, e.g., id., ECF No. 967, 8 1000, 1005, Mr. Smith filed appeals with the Sixth Circuit, see id., ECF Nos. 953, 973, 9 which appeals were also denied or dismissed. See, e.g., id., ECF Nos. 976, 980, 983, 996, 10 1012. Mr. Smith also filed at least one additional petition for certiorari with the Supreme 11 Court, see id., ECF No. 1073, which was denied on March 28, 2022. See id., ECF No. 12 1075. 13 Apparently finding no relief in those courts, Mr. Smith, again proceeding pro se, 14 filed the present case in this Court on May 31, 2022. His initial filing, which is described 15 as a Complaint on the Docket, is actually titled, “Rule 60(d)(3), Petition to VACATE 16 CRIMINAL CASE, #3:08-cr-31 (JMH), for FRAUD ON THE COURT.” (ECF No. 1.) 17 The case now comes before this Court on the United States’ motion to dismiss. 18 The United States raises several arguments in its motion, the most persuasive being 19 that this Court is the wrong venue for Plaintiff’s request. See Young v. Burlingham, No. 20 222CV0590JAMCKDPS, 2022 WL 2345679, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2022) (noting “that 21 Federal Rule 60(b)(6) only permits a court to grant a litigant relief from judgment 22 previously entered by the same court. It does not provide a method of challenging another 23 court's judgment.”); Active Way Int'l Ltd. v. Smith Elec. Vehicles Corp., No. 17-MC-80118- 24 SK, 2017 WL 6813186, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2017) (citations omitted) (stating “Rule 25 60 does not allow an attack on a judgment from another court.”) The Court also notes that 26 “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to criminal cases.” United States v. 27 Andrade-Larrios, 39 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 1994). 28 1 For both of these reasons, the Court grants the motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court 2 enter judgment accordingly, and close this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: November 4, 2022 em Dh 5 an Yn. Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge 6 United States District Court 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28