USA v. Anchrum

Docket 225.	1/
Docket 213.	2/
Docket 186.	3/
Docket 193.	4/
Docket 194.	5/
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL DION ANCHRUM,
Defendant.
No. 3:06-cr-00085-TMB
[Civil Case 3:11-cv-00111-TMB]
ORDER
[Re: Motion at Docket 226]
At Docket 226 Defendant Michael Dion Anchrum moved for clarification and
vacation of the Order of March 6, 2014, denying his motion under Rule 60(b) to vacate1/
the Court’s Order entered on November 19, 2012, which denied his motion for relief2/
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In his motion, Anchrum cites six claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel that he contends the Court did not address. Anchrum argues
that in failing to address these claims the integrity of this Court was compromised. For
the reasons that follow, the Court disagrees.
The Court has again reviewed the record in this case. That record reflects that
Anchrum filed his amended petition, the government opposed the petition, and3/ 4/
Anchrum replied. The matter was then submitted to Magistrate Judge Roberts for a5/
Case 3:06-cr-00085-TMB Document 227 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 4

Docket 196.	6/
Docket 200.	7/
Docket 202.	8/
Docket 206.	9/
Docket 208.	10/
Docket 213.	11/
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Porter v. Ollison, 620	12/
F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2010).
ORDER [Re: Motion at Docket 226]
United States v. Anchrum, 3:06-cr-00085-TMB 2
report and recommendation on the pleadings. Judge Roberts recommended the
petition be denied. Anchrum then moved for leave to file a supplemental claim of6/
ineffective assistance of counsel, and a request for oral argument. The Court7/ 8/
adopted the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and denied Anchrum’s motions
for leave to supplement his petition and for oral argument. The same day that the9/
Court adopted the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Court received
Anchrum’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. The Court10/
granted Anchrum’s motion for reconsideration and, after reviewing Anchrum’s
objections, reaffirmed its decision. As noted in the Order sought to be reconsidered,11/
both this Court and the Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability.
The Court’s review indicates that, to the extent that Anchrum raised his
ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his Amended Petition, the Court addressed
those claims. While the Court agrees that it has a duty to construe pro se pleadings
liberally, it does not have an obligation to speculate as to other claims that may have12/
been raised, but were not.
Case 3:06-cr-00085-TMB Document 227 Filed 05/13/14 Page 2 of 4

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on another point,	13/
Lacy v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); see Briones v. Riviera Hotel
& Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 662–64 (2005).	14/
See Title v. United States, 263 F.2d 28, 31 (9th Cir. 1959) (“Rule 60(b) was not	15/
intended to provide relief for error on the part of the court or to afford a substitute for appeal.”)
(citing Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 202 (1950)).
ORDER [Re: Motion at Docket 226]
United States v. Anchrum, 3:06-cr-00085-TMB 3
For the most part, the claims that Anchrum contends this Court did not address
were raised in its supplemental claim, which this Court did not grant leave to file. The
Court also notes that Anchrum attempted to raise these claims in his objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. While, as noted above, courts are required to
treat the pleadings of a pro se prisoners liberally, the Courts are not required to excuse
them from following the rules of practice, particularly with respect to the time and13/
method by which claims are presented to the court for resolution. In this case,
permitting a litigant to raise new and additional claims after briefing is complete and the
matter is submitted for decision was discretionary with the court. Moreover, because14/
it was of record at the time Anchrum appealed denial of his § 2255 petition, the matter
issue is one that could have been raised on appeal. Consequently, it is not properly the
subject of a motion under Rule 60(b). At most, even if it be error, it does not implicate15/
the integrity of the proceedings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Notice of Clarification & Request to
Vacate March 6, 2014, Order Denying Petition to Vacate November 19, 2012, Order at
Docket 226 is DENIED.
Case 3:06-cr-00085-TMB Document 227 Filed 05/13/14 Page 3 of 4

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 705 (2004) (“To obtain a	16/
certificate of appealability a prisoner must ‘demonstrat[e] that jurists of reason could disagree
with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the
issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” (quoting Miller-
El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003))).
See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Ninth Circuit R. 22-1.	17/
ORDER [Re: Motion at Docket 226]
United States v. Anchrum, 3:06-cr-00085-TMB 4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, to the extent it may be necessary, the Court
declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Any further request for a Certificate of16/
Appealability must be addressed to the Court of Appeals.17/
Dated: May 12 , 2014th
/s/ Timothy M. Burgess
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
United States District Judge
Case 3:06-cr-00085-TMB Document 227 Filed 05/13/14 Page 4 of 4