USA v. Baker

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, )
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING
) DEFENDANT’S MOTION
vs. )
) Case No. 4:09-cr-32
Michael Paul Baker, )
)
Defendant. )
Before the Court is a pro se “Motion Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)
and/or (6) Motion” filed by the Defendant on March 10, 2020. See Doc. No. 80. For the reasons
set forth below, the motion is dismissed.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 8, 2009, Baker was charged by indictment with aggravated sexual abuse of a child,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c) and 1153. See Doc. No. 2. On May 5, 2009, a superseding
indictment was filed charging Baker with aggravated sexual abuse of a child. See Doc. No. 19. On
August 19, 2009, a plea agreement was filed. See Doc. No. 27. The plea agreement was arrived at
based upon the fact that if Baker was convicted of the charge in the indictment, the Sentencing
Guideline calculation would have resulted in a mandatory life sentence. See Doc. No. 59, p. 4. On
September 15, 2009, Baker pled guilty to the superseding indictment. See Doc. Nos. 33, 59. At the
sentencing hearing on February 1, 2010, the Government and Baker’s attorney both recommended
a 30-year sentence. See Doc. No. 60, pp. 6, 8. The Court sentenced Baker to 360-months
1
Case 4:09-cr-00032-DLH Document 83 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 4

imprisonment, with credit for time served, followed by five years of supervised release. See Doc.
No. 38. No appeal was taken.
On September 8, 2015, Baker filed a “Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside,
or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody.” See Doc. No. 53. On December 7, 2015, the
Court denied the motion. See Doc. No. 61. Baker appealed. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
dismissed his appeal on May 1, 2018. See Doc. No. 76. On July 15, 2020, the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals denied Baker’s petition for authorization to file a successive habeas application in the
district court. See Doc. No. 78. Now before the Court is a Rule 60(b) motion filed on March 10,
2020. See Doc. No. 80. Also before the Court is a motion to compel defense counsel to produce his
case law. See Doc. No. 81.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has instructed that when a criminal defendant files a
Rule 60(b) motion following the dismissal of Section 2255 motions, the first action of the district
court should be a brief inquiry into whether the motion is really a second or successive Section 2255
motion. Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002). Federal inmates may not file a
“second or successive” motion under Section 2255 without pre-approval from the “appropriate court
of appeals.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); United States v. Lambros, 404 F.3d 1034, 1036-37 (8th Cir.
2005). If the Rule 60(b) motion is actually a successive Section 2255 motion, the district court may
either dismiss the motion for failure to obtain a certificate of appealability or transfer the motion to
the court of appeals. Id. The reason for this requirement is so inmates may not bypass the
2
Case 4:09-cr-00032-DLH Document 83 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 4

authorization requirements of Section 2255 by invoking some other procedure. Id. (internal citations
omitted).
A Rule 60(b) motion is not a second chance to reargue substantive arguments rejected by the
district court in the defendant’s Section 2255 motion or raise new substantive arguments which the
first motion did not address. Cf. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-33 (2005) (addressing the
limited but valid applicability of Rule 60(b) to habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). If a Rule
60(b) motion attacks the court’s denial of the Section 2255 motion on procedural rather than
substantive grounds, the Rule 60(b) motion should not be treated as a successive Section 2255
motion. Id. Arguments which attack the underlying conviction or sentence are generally substantive
in nature, while arguments which attack the integrity or legitimacy of the habeas proceeding itself
are procedural in nature. See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 375 (4th Cir. 2004); Harris v. United
States, 367 F.3d 74, 82 (2d Cir. 2004).
In his current motion, Baker essentially asks the Court to reconsider its prior denial of habeas
relief and reargues the issues raised in that motion. See Doc. No. 80. Upon careful review of the
motion, the Court finds the current motion is essentially a second or successive motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. The Court finds the current motion is substantive rather than procedural in nature
as Baker attempts to reargue the issues raised in his prior Section 2255 motion. As noted above,
Baker has previously filed a motion under Section 2255. The record reveals Baker sought
authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive motion under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 and that request was denied. The Court finds that the current motion is a second
or successive motion under Section 2255 filed without authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals and thus is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
3
Case 4:09-cr-00032-DLH Document 83 Filed 05/19/20 Page 3 of 4

III. CONCLUSION
After carefully reviewing the entire record and the relevant law, the Court finds that the
Defendant’s purported Rule 60(b) motion is in reality a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, filed without first obtaining authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Accordingly, the Court issues the following ORDER:
1) The Defendant’s Rule 60 motion (Doc. No. 80) is DISMISSED and the
Defendant’s motion to compel (Doc. No. 81) is DENIED.
2) The Court certifies that an appeal from the denial of this motion may not be
taken in forma pauperis because such a appeal would be frivolous and cannot
be taken in good faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45
(1962).
3) Based upon the entire record before the Court, dismissal of the motion is not
debatable, reasonably subject to a different outcome on appeal, or otherwise
deserving of further proceedings. Therefore, a certificate of appealability will
not be issued by this Court. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4
(1983); Tiedman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 520-22 (8th Cir. 1997). If the
defendant desires further review of his motion he may request issuance of a
certificate of appealability by a circuit judge of the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 19th day of May, 2020.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
4
Case 4:09-cr-00032-DLH Document 83 Filed 05/19/20 Page 4 of 4