Navarro

United States v. Navarro

Bad Law
959 F. Supp. 1273·97 Daily Journal DAR 10725·1997 WL 177671·1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4609
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 9, 1997CR. S-94-390 LKKCalifornia3,812 words

Opinion

Opinion

Karlton, J.

ORDER

Movant filed the instant suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . He claims that the Special Assistant United States Attorney appearing in the criminal case underlying this litigation was without authority to represent the United States during the relevant period, and accordingly, this court lacked jurisdiction to entertain that prosecution.

The matter was briefed, an evidentiary hearing was held, argument was heard and the matter was taken under submission. It is disposed of herein.

I.

FACTS

At all times relevant herein, Dale Kitching was a Deputy District Attorney in the County of Sacramento, and was Supervisor of that office’s major narcotics unit. Pursuant to those responsibilities, Mr. Kitching became involved in the Sacramento County Sheriffs investigation of the movant. After Navarro’s arrest, Mr. Kitching telephoned Nancy Simpson, then Chief of the Narcotics and Violent Crime Section of the office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California. His purpose was to propose the federal prosecution of the movant.

Ms. Simpson agreed that the case fell within the standards adopted by this district’s United States Attorney for the prosecution of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.