U.S. v. SCOTT, 11-cr-68-JLK. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20150807871
Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2015
Summary: ORDER JOHN L. KANE , Senior District Judge . This matter is before me after the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals treated Mr. Scott's pro se "Motion Factually Challenging the Plaintiff's Standing and the Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Court Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America" (Doc. 59) as an "implied request for leave to file a successive 2255 motion" and denied it. See Order and Judgment, No. 14-1493 (July 15, 2015). In so doing, the Te
Summary: ORDER JOHN L. KANE , Senior District Judge . This matter is before me after the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals treated Mr. Scott's pro se "Motion Factually Challenging the Plaintiff's Standing and the Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Court Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America" (Doc. 59) as an "implied request for leave to file a successive 2255 motion" and denied it. See Order and Judgment, No. 14-1493 (July 15, 2015). In so doing, the Ten..
More
ORDER
JOHN L. KANE, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before me after the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals treated Mr. Scott's pro se "Motion Factually Challenging the Plaintiff's Standing and the Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Court Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America" (Doc. 59) as an "implied request for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion" and denied it. See Order and Judgment, No. 14-1493 (July 15, 2015). In so doing, the Tenth Circuit helpfully pointed out that I had previously lacked authority to deny Doc. 59 in my own right, and vacated that denial (from which Mr. Scott had appealed) on jurisdictional grounds.
Having come full circle, this case is now REOPENED for the purpose of memorializing the rejection of Mr. Scott's "implied request" in Doc. 59, and deeming further proceedings on Doc. 59 MOOT. The Clerk may re-close the case.
Source: Leagle
