United States v. Satish Shetty

MEMORANDUM

The United States of America (hereafter the “government”) appeals the district court’s order of June 1, 2011, which sua sponte reopened and rescinded its order of March 27, 2009. The 2009 order had denied Satish Shetty’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; the June 2011 order granted that motion. We reverse.

(1) The government first argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the earlier order. We disagree. In making its jurisdictional argument, the government has failed to distinguish claim-processing rules from jurisdictional rules. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 210-11 , 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2364-65 , 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007); Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 16 , 126 S.Ct. 403, 405 , 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (per curiam); Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 454-56 , 124 S.Ct. 906, 915-16 , 157 L.Ed.2d 867 (2004); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2007). We agree that the district court’s inherent power to reconsider the March 27, 2009, order denying § 2255 relief was limited by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but they are claim-processing rules rather than jurisdictional rules. We also agree that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244…