Robinson v. Reynolds et al (INMATE1)
OPINION AND ORDER that petitioner James L. Robinson's "Motion under Rule 60 [for] Correcting of Records and Law" 29 is denied. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/8/2013. (jg, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES L. ROBINSON, #121865, )
JAMES REYNOLDS, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
OPINION AND ORDER
On May 17, 2008, petitioner James L. Robinson, a
prisoner of the State of Alabama, initiated this 28
U.S.C. § 2254 challenge to his state convictions, imposed
on him on May 4, 1999, for breaking and entering a motor
vehicle and possession of
a forged instrument.
12, 2010, the magistrate judge entered a recommendation
that this case be dismissed as Robinson had failed to
file his § 2254 petition within the one-year period of
limitation contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
did not object to the recommendation.
Thus, on April 7,
2010, after an independent and de novo review of the
record, this court adopted the recommendation as its
opinion and entered a final order and judgment.
On June 13, 2013, Robinson filed a "Motion under
Rule 60 [for] Correcting of Records and Law," in which he
entered on March 26, 2010, and issue a new judgment.
However, because no action was taken in this case on
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 motion as an attack on the final order
and judgment of April 7, 2010.
In the Rule 60 motion, Robinson argues he is entitled
to the requested relief based on an order issued with
regard to a third, 1988 sentence in a burglary case, on
January 10, 2010, granting a motion for time served.
this time-served motion with regard to the 1988 burglary
sentence, Robinson argued he should be awarded credit
towards his 25-year burglary sentence for all time served
on any conviction, thereby rendering his 1988 burglary
Robinson asserts in this federal
case that this state-court order acted to terminate not
only his 1988 sentence but also his 1999 sentences.
erroneous factual assumptions: (1) the 1988 burglary
sentence and the 1999 sentences ran concurrently during
the entirety of his incarceration on the 1988 sentence,
including time served prior to his 1999 convictions; and
(2) the order with regard to the 1988 burglary sentence
Robinson argues relief is warranted under Rule 60 due to
alleged misrepresentations or misconduct by the State
during the proceedings before this court as contemplated
by Rule 60(b)(3).
Motion (Doc. No. 29) at 2 (“No state
He also appears to argue that he should be
relieved from the judgment due to mistake or for other
general reasons as permitted under the provisions of Rule
60(b)(1) and (6).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1) provides that, “A motion under
Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time–-and for
reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the
entry of the judgment or order....”
To the extent
Robinson seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(1), (3), and (6),
his motion is not timely filed.
Robinson did not file
his motion within a year of entry of the challenged final
order and judgment and also failed to file the motion
within a reasonable time.
In addition, the arguments set
undermine the determination that he failed to file his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition within the applicable one-year
period of limitation.
Consequently, relief from the
final order and judgment is not warranted.
likewise without merit as the record demonstrates that
only the initial 15 years of the 1999 sentences were to
run concurrent with the time Robinson had yet to serve on
the 1988 sentence.
Furthermore, Robinson served the
sentences concurrently only during the time that he was
That is, Robinson was not entitled to credit
terminated, either by actual expiration of the sentence
or an order granting time served, the remaining term of
remained in full force and effect.
Finally, the order
issued with regard to the 1988 burglary sentence granting
Robinson’s request for time served did not reference or
address any other sentence and, therefore, did not impact
the remaining time of 25 years of the 1999 sentences.)
petitioner James L. Robinson’s "Motion under Rule 60
[for] Correcting of Records and Law" (doc. no. 29) is
DONE this the 8th day of July, 2013.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?