Sam v. Louisiana State et al
Filing
40
ORDER & REASONS: denying 31 Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 5/12/14. (sek)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSEPH SAM
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 11-713
LOUISIANA STATE, ET AL.
SECTION: "J" (3)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Joseph Sam ("Sam")'s Motion for Relief
from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
(Rec. Doc. 31) and the State of Louisiana's opposition to the
motion (Rec. Doc. 34). The motion was set for hearing on May 7,
2014, on the briefs. Having considered the motion and memoranda
of counsel, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds
that Sam's motion must be DENIED for the reasons set forth more
fully below.
This matter arises from a habeas petition that was filed in
this Court on April 5, 2011. As several other habeas petitions
had been filed in connection with the same conviction,1 the Court
1
Following a bench trial, Sam was convicted on one count of possession
with the intent to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison
at hard labor; however, after the court found that he was a triple felony
offender, his original sentence was vacated and he was sentenced to 25 years
1
classified the petition as a second successive habeas petition
and transferred it to the Fifth Circuit. (Rec. Doc. 13) The Fifth
Circuit subsequently declined to accept the second successive
petition. (Rec. Doc. 16) Following this denial, Sam filed a
motion for relief from judgment in this Court, which was denied,
and
applied
to
the
Fifth
Circuit
for
a
certificate
of
appealability, which application was also denied. (Rec. Docs. 18,
24, 28) Now, over 31 months after this Court denied Sam's habeas
petition,
he
has
once
again
filed
a
motion
for
relief
for
judgment.2
Sam invokes the "catch all" provision in Rule 60(b)(6),
which allows the Court to relieve a party from a final judgment
for
any
"reason
that
justifies
relief."
Fed.
R.
Civ.
Pro.
60(b)(6). Rule 60(c) requires that a motion for relief from
judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) “be made within a reasonable time.”
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(c); United States v. Green, 348 F.Appx. 917,
918 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Middleton v. McDonald, 388 F.3d
614,
617
(8th
Cir.
2004)
("three-year
delay
was
not
reasonable."); Kellogg v. Strack, 269 F.3d 100, 104 (2d Cir.2001)
(26–month
delay
was
“a
period
of
time
which
constitutes
at hard labor. (Rec. Doc. 10, pps. 2, 6)
2
For a more thorough review of the factual background and procedural
posture of this matter, see the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
issued on August 26, 2011. (Rec. Doc. 10)
2
a
patently unreasonable delay absent mitigating circumstances”),
cert. denied, 535 U.S. 932, 122 S.Ct. 1306, 152 L.Ed.2d 216
(2002); Watkins v. Lundell, 169 F.3d 540, 544 (8th Cir. 1999)
(expressing “considerable trepidation” about whether a 17–month
delay was reasonable, but ultimately finding that the issue was
not properly before the court), cert. denied 528 U.S. 928 (1999);
Nucor Corp. v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist., 999 F.2d 372, 374–75 (8th
Cir.1993)
(holding
unreasonable).
under
Rule
justifying
a
Courts
60(b)(6)
the
three
"have
to
reopening
and
one-half
required
show
of
a
year
movant
'extraordinary
a
final
delay
seeking
was
relief
circumstances'
judgment."
Gonzalez
v.
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2649, 162 L. Ed. 2d
480 (2005). "Such circumstances will rarely occur in the habeas
context." Id.
In this case, Sam does not give any reason for the two-anda-half
year
delay
in
filing
the
instant
motion,
let
alone
"extraordinary" reasons. Therefore, the Court finds that Sam's
motion is untimely and must be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED
that Joseph Sam's
Motion for Relief from
Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (Rec.
Doc. 31) is DENIED.
3
New Orleans, Louisiana this 12th day of May, 2014.
____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?