United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
Before the Court is petitioner Justin Krivi's motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) (Doc. 98) and motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) (Doc. 100). The former reasserts allegations that Mr. Krivi's original but withdrawn plea agreement is binding on the Court. The latter reasserts claims regarding Mr. Krivi's alleged right to counsel at an evidentiary hearing held on March 11, 2013.
For the reasons set forth below, the motions are DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court has provided extensive background information on this case in previous orders ( see e.g. Doc. 15, Doc. 45). Never the less, the Court will repeat the background facts that are pertinent to the issues presently before the Court.
On August 18, 2008, while represented by Attorney Eugene Howard, Mr. Krivi entered into a written plea agreement and pleaded guilty before Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud to the charges contained in the indictment against him. United States v. Krivi, S.D. Ill. Criminal Case No. 07-30143-GPM (Docs. 51, 75).
Prior to sentencing, however, Mr. Krivi filed a prose motion requesting the "Establishment of Truth and Emergency Demand for Relief." Id. at Doc. 69. At the sentencing hearing November 17, 2008, Mr. Krivi denied being Justin Krivi and suggested to the Court that he was Justin Wheeler, a sovereign, sui juris American citizen. In an effort to further determine the validity of these statements, the Court recessed the hearing, vacated all previous findings, and informed the parties that the matter would be reset. Id. at Doc. 87.
Mr. Howard filed a motion asking the Court to construe Mr. Krivi's previous pro se motion as a withdrawal of his guilty plea. Id at Doc. 86. Mr. Howard also filed a motion to withdraw. Id at Doc. 78. The Court held a hearing and granted both motions on February 9, 2009. At this hearing, the Court determined that Mr. Krivi desired to represent himself at trial and was capable of doing so. Id. at Doc. 197. The Court appointed Attorney Ethan Skaggs as standby counsel to assist Mr. Krivi during his trial. Id. at Doc. 98.
The jury trial began on May 12, 2009. As per his request, Mr. Krivi represented himself with Mr. Skaggs appearing as standby counsel. On the second day of trial, however, Mr. Krivi requested to change his plea to guilty and the Court then proceeded to conduct a Change of Plea hearing. Id. at Doc. 195. While under oath, Mr. Krivi pled guilty to three of the four charges of the indictment, and agreed to forfeit all property used in any way to commit or facilitate the commission of the offenses. Id. at Doc. 195. In exchange for the Government agreeing to dismiss the fourth charge of the indictment, Mr. Krivi waived his right to appeal his sentence, and his right to collaterally attack his sentence. Id. at Doc. 195.
The Court accepted Mr. Krivi's limited but open plea agreement, finding it was a knowing and voluntary plea. Id. at Doc. 195. Mr. Krivi requested that Mr. Skaggs represent him at sentencing, so the Court appointed Mr. Skaggs as Mr. Krivi's sentencing counsel. Id. at Doc. 195. The guideline sentencing range for Mr. Krivi was a minimum of ten years to life in prison. Id. at Doc. 195. Mr. Krivi was sentenced on July 27, 2009 to 262 months in the Bureau of Prisons, well below the maximum possible sentence. Id. at Doc. 193.
Since his sentencing, Mr. Krivi has filed more than a dozen pleadings with this Court related to his decision to forego the conditions of his original plea agreement and take the risk of proceeding to trial. Mr. Krivi has asserted arguments blaming his counsel, his ignorance of the law, and this Court for his decision to withdraw his original plea agreement. The Court specifically discusses some of these pleadings as well as other pertinent arguments that have previously been asserted by Mr. Kirvi below.
On August 2, 2010, Mr. Krivi filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence (Doc. 1). In his petition, Mr. Krivi claimed that: his February 9, 2009 withdrawal of plea and waiver of counsel was made unintelligently and involuntarily; the Court abused its discretion in allowing the prosecution to approach him at trial; he had ineffective assistance of counsel; he was misadvised by his sentencing counsel as to his right to appeal; and that he was not given an opportunity to defend or represent himself properly (Doc. 1). In ruling on the § 2255 motion, the Court found that Mr. Krivi knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to collaterally appeal his sentence under any Title 28 motions, and therefore the claims he brought in his § 2255 motion were barred (Doc. 15). Even though Mr. Krivi's claims were barred, the Court went on to address the merits of each claim (Doc. 15). The Court denied each claim as implausible, meritless, and/or unsupported by the facts with the exception of Mr. Krivi's claim for ineffective assistance of post-sentencing counsel (Doc. 15).
On September 11, 2012, Mr. Krivi filed a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Mr. Krivi argued the Court committed manifest errors of law and fact by denying his claims pertaining to the withdrawal of his original plea agreement (Doc. 17). This motion was denied on September 18, 2012. Thereafter, Mr. Krivi filed a "Second and ...