WEST v. WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Filing 22

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration re 21 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by REGINALD DEVONTA WEST, JR. Copy mailed to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 10/22/2012.(NS) Modified on 10/23/2012 (SMD).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
REGINALD DEVONTA WEST, JR.,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
vs.
)
)
SUPERINTENDENT, Indiana State Prison, )
)
Respondent.
)

2:11-cv-249-WTL-WGH

ENTRY
The petitioner’s current custodian is substituted as the respondent.
The petitioner’s current address has been noted on the docket.
Final judgment in this action for habeas corpus relief was entered on July 23,
2012. Petitioner West seeks reconsideration of the denial of his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. The motion to
reconsider was signed by the petitioner on October 11, 2012, more than ten weeks
after the entry of final judgment.
A motion to reconsider filed more than 28 days after entry of the challenged
order, “automatically becomes a Rule 60(b) motion.” Hope v. United States, 43 F.3d
1140, 1143 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 299, 301 (7th
Cir. 1992))
Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regulates the procedure for
obtaining relief from final judgments. Arrieta v. Battaglia, 461 F.3d 861, 864 (7th
Cir. 2006)(citing Wesco Prods. Co. v. Alloy Auto. Co., 880 F.2d 981, 983 (7th Cir.
1989)).
"A Rule 60(b) motion permits relief from judgment [only] when it is based on
one of six specific grounds listed in the rule." Talano v. Northwestern Med. Faculty
Found., 273 F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir. 2001). A motion for relief from judgment
pursuant to Rule 60(b) permits a party to seek relief from judgment on the grounds
of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, and fraud.
American Federation of Grain Millers, Local 24 v. Cargill Inc., 15 F.3d 726, 728 (7th

Cir. 1994). It also authorizes relief for "any other reason justifying relief from the
operation of the judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b),.
West’s motion to reconsider re-narrates the chronology of his challenge to his
conviction in the Indiana state courts and of the filing and the dismissal of his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The motion to reconsider also recites that West
was misadvised or was abandoned by counsel during the post-conviction relief
process—a point to which his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of
counsel did not extent, See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). This
information, however, either was or could have been submitted in response to the
respondent’s argument regarding the timeliness of the habeas petition.
Relief from judgment under Rule 60 is warranted "only upon a showing of
extraordinary circumstances that create substantial danger that the underlying
judgment was unjust." Margoles v. Johns, 798 F.2d 1069, 1073 (7th Cir. 1986); see
also United States v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 299, 301 (7th Cir. 1992)(explaining that a
post-judgment motion "must be shaped to the specific grounds for modification or
reversal found in 60(b)--they cannot be general pleas for relief."). West has made no
showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect or any other condition
that would justify reopening this case.
In order for a Rule 60(b) movant to obtain the relief requested, he must show
that he had both grounds for relief, Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)-(5), and a meritorious
claim or defense. Breuer Electric Mfg. Co. v. Toronado Systems of America, Inc., 687
F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1982). West’s motion to reconsider does not show either of
these circumstances. That motion [21] is therefore denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10/22/2012
Date: __________________
Distribution:
_______________________________

Reginald Devonta West, Jr.
#998151
Indiana State Prison
One Park Row
Michigan City, IN 46360
All Electronically Registered Counsel

Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana