Shawn Louis Sutter v. United States
703 F. App'x 774
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Shawn Louis Sutter pleaded guilty to methamphetamine distribution/conspiracy and was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment plus 10 years' supervised release; he did not directly appeal his sentence.
- Sutter filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence; the district court denied relief and declined a certificate of appealability (COA).
- After filing a notice of appeal from the § 2255 denial, Sutter returned to the district court seeking leave to file an oversized Rule 60(b) motion and discovery in support of it (the “post-judgment motions”).
- The district court denied the post-judgment motions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Sutter’s appeal was pending; Sutter appealed that denial to the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit concluded the district court erred in dismissing the post-judgment motions for lack of jurisdiction and vacated and remanded for the district court to consider their merits, but dismissed Sutter’s separate claims of judicial bias/misconduct for lack of a COA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider post-judgment Rule 60(b) and discovery motions while § 2255 appeal was pending | Sutter: district court retained jurisdiction to consider Rule 60(b) and related discovery despite his pending appeal | Government: district court could consider those motions while appeal pending | Court: District court erred; it could consider merits and matters collateral to appeal; vacated denial and remanded to consider merits |
| Whether this Court should vacate all of Judge Lazzara’s orders for alleged bias and judicial misconduct | Sutter: requests vacatur of all district-court orders as remedy for alleged bias; says no COA required because relief is remedial | Government: COA required for review of Rule 60(b) denial and related relief | Court: Dismissed this part of appeal for lack of jurisdiction because a COA is required to review denial of Rule 60(b) relief; no COA granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahone v. Ray, 326 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir.) (district court may act on matters in furtherance of an appeal and consider Rule 60(b) motions while appeal pending)
- Gonzalez v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 366 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir.) (COA required for appeal of denial of Rule 60(b) motion)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (Sup. Ct.) (certificate of appealability is a jurisdictional prerequisite)