Lopez v. Phillips et al
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 12/20/13. (mdb)
l
I
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CARLOS LOPEZ,
i
I
!
Petitioner,
v.
C.A. No. 10-254-RGA
PERRY PHELPS, Warden, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE, et. al,
et al,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM
Pending before the Court is petitioner Carlos Lopez's ("Lopez") document titled
"Memorandum of Law in Support of the Newly Discovered Evidence that Was Not
Brought Forth by the Defense Counsel at Trial." (D. I. 26) The Court construes this
memorandum to be a motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(6) ("Rule 60(b) motion") regarding the Honorable Renee M. Bumb's
July 27, 2011 Opinion and accompanying Order denying as time-barred Lopez's
petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("petition").
(D.I.18; D.l. 19)
A Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration "allows a party to seek relief from a final
judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances
including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence." Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545
U.S. 524, 528 (2005). However, when a petitioner files a motion for reconsideration
after the denial of his habeas petition, a court must first determine if the motion
constitutes a second or successive petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act ("AEDPA"). See Pridgen v. Shannon, 380 F.3d 721, 727 (3d Cir.
2004)(holding that a Rule 60(b) motion attacking the manner in which the earlier
habeas judgment was procured and not the underlying conviction may be adjudicated
on the merits, whereas a Rule 60(b) motion seeking to collaterally attack the petitioner's
underlying conviction should be treated as a successive habeas petition). Significantly,
AEDPA prohibits a district court from considering the merits of a second or successive
habeas application unless the filing of such an application was authorized by the
appropriate Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Robinson v. Johnson, 313
F.3d 128, 139-40 (3d Cir. 2002).
Here, the court concludes that Lopez's Rule 60(b) Motion constitutes a second or
successive habeas request because: (1) Lopez's contention that he has discovered
new evidence that defense counsel failed to contact certain alibi witness which, in turn,
violated his right to due process, collaterally challenges his underlying conviction rather
than the integrity of the prior habeas proceeding; and (2) Lopez could have presented
this argument in his original petition, because he was fully aware of all alibi witnesses at
the time of his trial. Considering that Lopez did not obtain permission from the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals before filing his request, the Court will dismiss the instant
Motion for lack of jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1); Robinson, 313 F.3d at 139
(holding that "[w]hen a second or successive habeas petition is erroneously filed in a
district court without the permission of the court of appeals, the district court's only
option is to dismiss the petition or transfer it to the court of appeals."). A separate order
dismissing the motion will be entered.
~~~
~· ~ )J)r'P
UNITED STAT S DISTRICT JUDGE
DA E
2
I
J
I
f
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?