United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
D. CRABTREE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the court on pro se defendant Thomas Guy
Caraway's “Motion to Dismiss Void March 6, 2019,
Memorandum and Order of Court or in Alternative Motion for
Reconsideration of Order” under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 59(e) or, alternatively, 60(b), and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Doc. 145. For reasons explained
below, the court denies Mr. Caraway's motion.
April 30, 2007, a jury convicted Mr. Caraway of the
following: (1) causing an explosive device to be delivered by
U.S. Mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1716(a),
1716(j)(2), and 2; and (2) possessing an explosive device
during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A), 924(c)(1)(B)(ii), and
2. See Doc. 60; Doc. 74 at 1. The court sentenced
Mr. Caraway to 30 years' imprisonment. Doc. 74 at 2. Mr.
Caraway appealed, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed Mr.
Caraway's convictions on July 28, 2008. Doc. 98-1;
see also generally United States v. Caraway, 534
F.3d 1290 (10th Cir. 2008).
October 19, 2009, Mr. Caraway filed his first motion to
vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. 100.
The court denied Mr. Caraway's motion on its merits on
September 15, 2010. Doc. 119; see also generally United
States v. Caraway, No. 06-40138-01-RDR, 2010 WL 3721689
(D. Kan. Sept. 15, 2010). The court also denied Mr.
Caraway's request for a certificate of appealability.
Doc. 125. Mr. Caraway appealed, and, on March 30, 2011, the
Tenth Circuit affirmed this court's decision denying his
§ 2255 motion and certificate of appealability. Doc.
128; see also generally United States v. Caraway,
417 Fed.Appx. 828 (10th Cir. 2011). Then, the Supreme Court
denied Mr. Caraway's petition for a writ of certiorari on
November 7, 2011, thus ending his first § 2255
challenge. Caraway v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 565
Caraway filed his second § 2255 motion on June 13, 2016.
It argued that the Supreme Court's decision in
Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015),
rendered his sentence “excessive because of the 924(c)
enhancement.” Doc. 133 at 4. The court denied his
motion because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
decide it. The court also declined to transfer Mr.
Caraway's second § 2255 motion to the Tenth Circuit
because transfer would not have served the interest of
justice. Doc. 140.
on January 14, 2019, Mr. Caraway filed a “Motion to
Reopen Closed Case.” Doc. 143. He asserted that no
proper warrant existed for his arrest. Specifically, he
argued that the warrant (Doc. 9) misreported the time when a
United States Deputy Marshal had served him with the warrant.
He also contended that no judge had signed the warrant. On
March 6, 2019, the court denied his motion because it raised
a new ground for relief from the original judgment entered
against him, and thus constituted another successive §
2255 motion. Doc. 144. The court thus lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to decide the motion, and it again declined to
transfer Mr. Caraway's successive § 2255 motion to
the Tenth Circuit because transfer would not have served the
interest of justice.
Caraway now has filed a motion asking the court either to
dismiss its March 6, 2019, Order or, alternatively,
reconsider that Order. He seeks relief under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 60(b), 59(e), and 12(b)(6).
Caraway lists several rules as grounds for the relief his
motion seeks. One of these rules can provide no basis for
this relief. Rule 12(b)(6) does not apply to Mr.
Caraway's case- that rule allows a defendant in a civil
case to file a responsive pleading asserting a defense that a
plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Caraway cites two other rules to support his arguments: Rule
60(b) and Rule 59(e).
Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a
final judgment or order. A court may grant a Rule 60(b)
motion on the following grounds:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . .
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4)
the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged . . .; or (6) any other reason that
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). But, relief under Rule 60(b) is
“ʻextraordinary and may only be granted in
exceptional circumstances.'” Lebahn v.
Owens, 813 F.3d 1300, 1306 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting
ClearOne Commc'ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 643 F.3d 735,
754 (10th Cir. 2011)). And, second, Rule 59(e) allows a