Lee v. Cain
Filing
57
ORDER & REASONS. It is ORDERED that Petitioner's 38 Motion for Relief from Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier. (gec)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARLES LEE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 12-1185
N. BURL CAIN, WARDEN
SECTION: “J”
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from
Judgment (R. Doc. 38), a response thereto filed by Respondent (R.
Doc. 54), and a reply by Petitioner (R. Doc. 56). Having considered
the motion and legal memoranda, the record, and the applicable
law, the Court finds that the motion should be DENIED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 31, 2012, Petitioner, Charles Lee, filed a petition
for
writ
of
habeas
corpus,
which
this
Court
dismissed
with
prejudice on May 30, 2013. (R. Docs. 28, 29.) On June 18, 2013,
Petitioner appealed this Court’s decision to the Fifth Circuit,
which was also denied (R. Docs. 31, 35, 36.) On June 3, 2014, the
Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s request for writ of certiorari.
(R. Doc. 37.) On January 21, 2016, Petitioner filed a Rule 60(b)
motion for relief from judgment. (R. Doc. 38.) Petitioner argues
that this Court misrepresented the law, which constitutes “fraud
committed by the magistrate judge.” Id. at 3, 5. On June 6, 2016,
this Court ordered that the Attorney General and District Attorney
file an answer to Petitioner’s application. (R. Doc. 41.) After
granting extensions for Respondent to answer, on August 4, 2016,
a response was filed by Respondent. (R. Doc. 54.) In short,
Respondent
argues
that
Petitioner’s
motion
should
be
denied
because it is untimely and lacks merit. Id. at 3-5. Thereafter,
Petitioner filed a reply in opposition. (R. Doc. 56.) Petitioner’s
Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment is now before the Court
on the briefs.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 60(b) provides that a court, “[o]n motion and just
terms,” may “relieve a party or its legal representative from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding” due to:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in
time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud
(whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an
earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6)
any other reason that justifies relief.
As the moving party, Petitioner has the burden to show why the
Court should vacate the Court’s prior judgment. League of United
Latin Am. Citizens, Dist. 19 v. City of Boerne, 659 F. 3d 421, 438
(5th Cir. 2011). However, granting relief under Rule 60 is “an
extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Templet v.
2
HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004). A motion to
vacate
a
judgment
is
“not
the
proper
vehicle
for
rehashing
evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered
or raised before the entry of judgment.” Id. at 478.
Motions pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) carry a limitation
period of one year. Davis v. Cain, No. 4-1475, 2016 WL 5337808, at
*1
(E.D.
La.
“reasonable
Sept.
time”
is
23,
2016).
“defined
For
by
a
the
Rule
60(b)(6)
particular
motion,
facts
and
circumstances of each case.” Associated Marine Equip., LLC v.
Jones,
407
F.
App’x
815,
816
(5th
Cir.
2011).
These
time
limitations will apply unless the movant can show good cause for
the delay, which is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In re
Osborne, 379 F.3d 277, 283 (5th Cir. 2004). While the Supreme Court
has acknowledged the important role Rule 60(b) can play in federal
habeas cases, the Supreme Court has made clear the rule is not to
be used to attack the district court's resolution of a claim on
the merits, but rather a “defect in the integrity of the federal
habeas proceedings.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532–34
(2005). Further, Rule 60 cannot be used to present new claims for
relief from the state court conviction unless it relies on either
a new rule of constitutional law or newly discovered facts as
required under AEDPA. Id. at 531–532, citing § 2244(b)(2).
3
DISCUSSION
Petitioner’s motion provides that he is challenging this
Court’s ruling under Rule 60(b)(3), as he argues throughout his
briefs that “[t]he court has fraudulently misrepresented circuit
law” and that this court “deliberately refused to apply circuit
law.” (R. Doc. 38 at 3, 5; R. Doc. 56 at 2-5). 1 Further, Petitioner
argues that “the acts of the court in the habeas proceedings
[consist] of acts of impropriety that the record along with the
relevant law [prove] the District Court’s failure to apply the
law.”
(R.
Doc.
56
at
3.)
This
Court
rendered
judgment
on
Petitioner’s habeas petition on May 30, 2013. (R. Docs. 28, 29.)
Under Rule 60(b)(3), Petitioner was required to file a motion to
amend
judgment
within
one
year
of
the
judgment.
Under
Rule
60(b)(6), Petitioner was require to file a motion to amend judgment
within
a
reasonable
period
of
time.
The
Court
finds
that
Petitioner’s January 21, 2016 motion is untimely and must be
dismissed.
Petitioner
has
not
given
any
explanation
for
the
protracted delay in the filing of his 60(b) motion, 2 nor has he
1
Petitioner also argues that he is bringing this motion under Rule 60(b)(4)
and (6). (R. Doc. 56 at 7.) However, Petitioner again argues that this court
has “refused to abide by circuit law,” and that the judgment was based on the
incorrect interpretation of jurisprudence which is in actuality the same
challenge he presents under Rule 60(b)(3). Respondent appears to have raised
these arguments in an attempt to circumvent the one-year limitation on Rule
60(1)-(3) motions.
2 Petitioner’s motion was filed over two and a half years after this Court’s
judgment dismissing his habeas petition, two years after the Fifth Circuit
denied his appeal, and a year and a half after the Supreme Court denied his
petition for writ of certiorari.
4
raised any arguments nor produced any evidence that has not already
been raised in prior proceedings.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from
Judgment (Rec. Doc. 38) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 5th day of October, 2016.
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?