Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Walsh v. United States

United States District Court, D. Maryland

February 12, 2014

PATRICK STEPHEN WALSH, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROGER W. TITUS, District Judge.

Petitioner Patrick Stephen Walsh ("Walsh") has filed a number of motions in this Court, including a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a Motion to Return Property, a Motion to Subpoena Telephone Records, and a Motion to Amend Restitution Order. For the reasons stated below, his Rule 60(b) motion will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the parties will be directed to submit additional filings with respect to his Motion to Return Property, his Motion to Subpoena Telephone Records will be denied as moot, and his Motion to Amend Restitution Order will be denied.

BACKGROUND

In 2005, a jury convicted Patrick Stephen Walsh of conspiracy to commit arson under 18 U.S.C. § 844(n) and thirty-five counts of arson under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). United States v. Walsh, 228 F.Appx. 295, 295-96 (4th Cir. 2007), cert denied 552 U.S. 963 (2007); ECF No. 197. Walsh was found guilty of "intentionally set[ting] fires at a partially-complete housing development in Charles County, Maryland, called Hunter's Brooke." Walsh, 228 F.Appx. at 296. Following his convictions, "[h]e was sentenced to 253 months of imprisonment, over three million dollars in restitution, and a special assessment of $3600." Id.; ECF No. 197.

Walsh appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed them in an opinion dated May 31, 2007. Walsh, 228 F.Appx. at 295-96. He subsequently sought review by the Supreme Court, which denied his petition for writ of certiorari on October 9, 2007. Walsh v. United States, 552 U.S. 963 (2007).

On October 3, 2008, Walsh filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Walsh v. United States , Civ. No. RWT 08-2637, 2009 WL 3711559, at *1 (D. Md. Nov. 3, 2009); ECF No. 349. He alleged "ineffective assistance of counsel based on numerous errors made by counsel before, during, and after trial." Id. He later amended his original petition and filed a "motion to supplement his amended petition, " which was granted. Id. On November 3, 2009, this Court entered an opinion and order denying the § 2255 petition. Id. at *7; ECF Nos. 363, 364.[1] Walsh appealed this decision to the Fourth Circuit, which "den[ied] a certificate of appealability and dismiss[ed] the appeal" on May 11, 2010. United States v. Walsh, 377 F.Appx. 331, 331-32 (4th Cir. 2010); ECF No. 373. He again sought review by the Supreme Court, which denied his petition for writ of certiorari on June 28, 2010. Walsh v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 3534 (2010).

On October 28, 2010, Walsh submitted a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), attacking his convictions on the grounds that (1) "the Court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him under Title 18 U.S.C. § 844(i)" and (2) "the Court grossly erred with its loss calculation." ECF No. 376. In connection with this motion, he also tendered an In Forma Pauperis Declaration. ECF No. 377.

Walsh has since filed a number of other motions, including a Motion to Return Property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). ECF No. 384. The Government responded to this motion on January 5, 2011, ECF No. 391, and Walsh replied on February 18, 2011, ECF No. 393. On June 20, 2011, Walsh submitted a Motion to Subpoena Telephone Records, seeking the records for two phone calls - one on July 24, 2010 between Walsh and Codefendant Jeremy Parady's sister, and one on April 23, 2011 between Walsh and Jeremy Parady. ECF No. 397. He filed a Motion to Amend Restitution Order on November 10, 2011, arguing that the restitution levied against him should be lowered to $21, 163 because of insurance payments that were made to the Lennar Corporation ("Lennar"). ECF No. 398. On January 23, 2012, he filed a Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 403, on February 27, 2012, he filed a Motion to Ascertain Status, ECF No. 411, and on May 25, 2012, he filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Default, ECF No. 413.

The Government responded to Walsh's motion for relief under Rule 60(b), his Motion to Amend Restitution Order, and his Motion to Subpoena Telephone Records on August 16, 2013. ECF No. 421. Walsh replied with an "Informal response pleading" on September 3, 2013. ECF No. 422. The Government filed a Supplemental Response to Walsh's Motion to Subpoena Telephone Records on October 9, 2013. ECF No. 423. Walsh did not respond.

ANALYSIS

I. Motion for Relief Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)

Walsh's Rule 60(b) motion must be dismissed because it is a "successive claim for post-conviction relief" that attacks his underlying conviction, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. United States v. Dukes, Civil No. RWT-09-135, 2013 WL 398930, at *1 (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2013). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides:

(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.