United States of America v. Hudson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-16-119-R
)
)
NIKO DEANDRE DAVIS, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Niko Davis’s (“Defendant”) “Motion to Vacate
Conviction Under Rule 60(B)(3) and (6).” Doc. No. 1805. The Government responded in
opposition. Doc. No. 1806. The Court finds as follows.
“Rule 60(b) does not apply to a criminal proceeding.” United States v. Edge, 315 F.
App’x 92, 94-95 (10 th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the “district court properly recognized
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) has no application to criminal proceedings,” but that
the district court erred in denying the motion because it should have been dismissed).
Because Defendant filed this motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in a criminal case, the
Court lacks jurisdiction to reach the merits of Defendant’s motion. Further, even if this
Court construed Defendant’s motion as a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, it
would be subject to dismissal as a second or successive § 2255 motion without
authorization from the Tenth Circuit. See In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10 th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion, Doc. No. 1805, is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
Case 5:16-cr-00119-R Document 1812 Filed 06/09/21 Page 1 of 2

IT IS SO ORDERED on this 9 th day of June 2021.
Case 5:16-cr-00119-R Document 1812 Filed 06/09/21 Page 2 of 2