Rice v. Louisiana State et al
Filing
25
ORDER AND REASONS denying 24 Motion to Review Judgment. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 7/24/2014. (kac)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CALVIN RICE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 13-4940
STATE OF LOUISIANA
SECTION: “C” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before this Court is a Motion to Review Judgment brought by the pro se plaintiff, Calvin
Rice. Rec. Doc. 24. Having considered the record, the law and the failure of any party to file an
opposition, the Court has determined that the Motion to Review Judgment is DENIED for the
following reasons.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
The plaintiff, Calvin Rice, is a state inmate who is currently serving a sentence of five
years at hard labor following a 2011 conviction in Rapides Parish for second degree battery. Rec.
Doc. 19 at 1. The plaintiff has three prior criminal convictions in Orleans Parish. Rec. Doc. 20 at
2. A brief description of those convictions follows.
On February 7, 1991, the plaintiff was charged with one count of aggravated burglary of
an inhabited dwelling and one count of attempted aggravated rape. Id. The state amended the
charges and the plaintiff pled guilty to one count of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling
and one count of attempted sexual battery on January 30, 1992. Id. The trial court sentenced him
to three years at hard labor, suspended, with three years of active probation as to each count and
a fine of $600 as to the conviction for attempted sexual battery. Id. He subsequently paid the fine
in full and completed his probation period on January 30, 1995. Id.
Six years later, on January 16, 1998, the plaintiff was charged with one count of
possession of cocaine. Rec. Doc. 20 at 3. On July 6, 1998, he was tried by a jury and convicted
of attempted possession of cocaine. Id. On the day of his conviction, the State filed a multiple
offender bill based on the prior conviction for attempted sexual battery. Rec. Doc. 20 at 4. The
plaintiff pled guilty to the multiple offender bill, served a 15 month prison sentence, and was
released on April 14, 1999. Id.
In his final Orleans Parish conviction, the plaintiff was charged on May 11, 2000, with
one count of possession of crack cocaine. Id. at 5. He was found guilty after a jury trial and
sentenced to life imprisonment under the State's multiple offender bill. Id. The plaintiff appealed
the sentence to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit and the matter was remanded. Id. at 6. A new
sentencing and multiple offender hearing was held and the plaintiff pled guilty to a separate
multiple offender bill based on his 1992 unauthorized entry conviction. Rec. Doc. 20 at 6. On
January 10, 2005, the plaintiff was resentenced to serve five years in prison at hard labor with
credit for time served. Id. He was released from prison on April 24, 2005. Id.
The plaintiff filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition on July 31, 2013. Rec. Doc. 5. In his
petition, the plaintiff asserted that he was never convicted of the 1992 attempted sexual battery
charge and that if he was convicted it was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at
17. He also argued that the conviction for attempted sexual battery should not have been used
against him in the year 2000 multiple offender bill. Id. Finally, the plaintiff sought $20,000 in
compensation for false imprisonment and mental anguish. Id. at 15.
2
On May 12, 2014, a Magistrate Judge's Report was issued recommending that the
plaintiff's § 2254 petition be dismissed with prejudice because monetary damages are not
recoverable in a habeas petition and because "the plaintiff is not in custody for purposes of
habeas corpus review of the three prior Orleans Parish convictions." Rec. Doc. 20 at 9. Instead,
the plaintiff is "in custody" for habeas purposes only as to the Rapides Parish conviction for
second degree battery. Id. Alternatively, the Report stated that if the plaintiff is in custody
related to the prior Orleans Parish Convictions, the petition is not timely filed. Id. This Court
adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation denying the plaintiff's petition for
habeas corpus on June 23, 2014. Rec. Doc. 21.
ANALYSIS
In the Motion to Review at issue, the plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order
adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and denying the plaintiff's petition
for habeas corpus. Rec. Doc. 24. The plaintiff's "Motion to Review" will be treated as a motion
for reconsideration, which is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. Gonzalez v.
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). Rule 60(b) permits a party to seek relief from a final
judgment under any of the following circumstances:
(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
any 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.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). A Rule 60(b) motion is meant to challenge "not the substance of the federal
3
court's resolution of a claim on the merits, but some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas
proceedings." Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532. A party must "clearly establish either a manifest error
of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence" to be successful on a motion for
reconsideration. Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745,763 (5th Cir.2005). Similarly, a motion for
reconsideration "is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments
that could have been offered or raised before the entry of the judgment." Templet v. HydroChem
Inc., 367 F.3d. 473, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2004).
The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration attempts to rehash the same arguments that he
argued in his original habeas petition. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that he never pled guilty
to the 1992 attempted sexual battery charge. Rec. Doc. 24 at 2. As the Magistrate Judge
determined in the Report and Recommendation, this argument is not valid because the plaintiff is
not "in custody" for the attempted sexual battery charge for purposes of habeas corpus review.
Rec. Doc. 20 at 17. Additionally, the plaintiff's motion to reconsider does not allege facts
sufficient to support a Rule 60(b) motion because it merely reasserts the same claims made in the
plaintiff's original habeas petition.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Review Judgment is DENIED. Rec. Doc.
24.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this __24th____ day of ____ July___________, 2014.
____________________________________
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?