United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge
Hendrickson (“Hendrickson”) filed a pro
se “Motion for the Stay of Execution of Sentence,
the Vacating of Her Conviction, and Other Relief, ”
(“Motion”) on October 10, 2017. [Doc. # 169]. She
requests that the Court vacate her conviction because the
Court had no authority to preside over proceedings compelling
Hendrickson to file false tax returns. She relies on Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and (6).
Court issued a notice of its ability to construe
Hendrickson's Motion as one under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The Court warned Hendrickson that she had until November 3,
2017 to either withdraw her Motion or file an amended motion
under § 2255. [Doc. # 175]. Hendrickson did not exercise
the options given to her. The Court then issued a notice that
it would construe her Motion as one under § 2255. [Doc.
Motion has been fully briefed. Hendrickson's request for
a stay is MOOT. The balance of her motion is
2014, Hendrickson was tried and convicted of criminal
contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) for failing to comply
with an injunctive order entered by Judge Nancy Edmunds.
Judge Edmunds' order required Hendrickson - who falsely
believes that only government employees are subject to tax
withholdings - to file corrected tax returns for years 2002
and 2003, and to include a true account of Hendrickson's
gross income. Hendrickson was also ordered to refrain from
filing false tax returns in the future. Hendrickson failed to
abide by Judge Edmunds' order, and the Government charged
her with criminal contempt. As a result of Hendrickson's
conviction in this Court, Hendrickson was sentenced on April
9, 2015 to eighteen months imprisonment, followed by one year
of supervised release. One condition of her release was to
file all delinquent or amended tax returns.
filed two motions. In both, she asked the Court to modify
conditions of her supervised release. The Court denied both
motions. On September 8, 2017, the Court sentenced
Hendrickson to four months imprisonment for violating the
conditions of her release; she failed to file 2002 and 2003
amended tax returns.
now claims that by compelling her to file amended tax returns
for 2002 and 2003, the Court and the Government violated 26
U.S.C. § 7206, which criminalizes any effort to procure
tax returns that the signer does not believe to be true.
Hendrickson says the Court acted criminally by ordering the
returns and in doing so, this so called criminal conduct by
the Court deprived it of jurisdiction over Hendrickson's
case. The Government argues that Hendrickson's claim is
procedurally barred and meritless.
federal custodial sentence may be vacated, set aside or
corrected if: (1) the sentence was imposed in violation of
the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the court
was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the
sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law; or,
(4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
Hendrickson's Claim Is Not Procedurally
Government concedes in its Response that Hendrickson's
post-conviction claim that the Court lacks jurisdiction falls
within the scope of § 2255. However, according to the
Government, Hendrickson's jurisdictional claim is
procedurally barred because she waived it by not raising it
on direct appeal. In her “Reply To The Purported
Government Opposition To Her Motion To Vacate And Other
Relief” (“Reply”) [Doc. # 181], Hendrickson
argues that jurisdictional claims can be raised at any time
and are never waived.
is correct; subject matter jurisdiction, which
“involves [the Court's] power to hear a case, can
never be forfeited or waived.” United States v.
Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). Even if, as the
Government claims, “[Hendrickson] did not challenge
subject-matter jurisdiction on appeal, this claim is not
procedurally defaulted because claims challenging
subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived.”
Lewis v. United States, 2013 U.S. ...