Williams v. Howes

Filing 68

ORDER Denying 67 Motion to re-hear order denying relief by Anthony Williams. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY WILLIAMS,
Case Number: 2:08-10772
HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

Petitioner,
v.
CAROLE HOWES,
Respondent.
/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO REHEAR ORDER DENYING RELIEF
On February 14, 2013, the Court denied Petitioner Anthony J. Williams’ habeas
corpus petition finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. (ECF No. 37).
On August 12, 2014, Petitioner filed a Rule 60(b) Motion to Reopen Habeas Proceedings
(ECF No. 48), which the Court denied. (ECF No. 49). Petitioner filed a second Rule
60(b) Motion to Reopen Habeas Proceedings (ECF No. 56), which the Court also denied
(ECF No. 59). Petitioner then filed a Motion to Alter Order Denying Rule 60(b) Motion
to Reopen Habeas Proceedings (ECF No. 60), which the Court denied on August 23,
2017. (ECF No. 61) Now before the Court is Petitioner’s Rule 60(b)(2) Motion to Rehear
Order Denying Relief. (ECF No. 67).
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), the Court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding on the grounds of newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in

time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b). To prevail on a Rule 60(b)(2) motion, the
movant must demonstrate that: 1) he exercised due diligence in obtaining the information;
and 2) the evidence is material and clearly would have produced a different result if
presented before the original judgment. McFall v. Patton, 238 F.3d 422 (6th Cir. 2000)
(citing Good v. Ohio Edison Co., 149 F.3d 413, 423 (6th Cir. 1998)). A motion under
Rule 60(b)(2) must be made within a reasonable time no more than a year after the entry
of judgment or order or the date of the proceeding. Fed. R. Civ. P 60(c)(1).
Petitioner’s motion is timely, but he does not present any new evidence justifying
relief under Rule 60(b)(2). Petitioner claims to have new evidence to support his
argument that his petition was timely filed. The evidence, however, is not new.
Petitioner previously advanced the argument that his petition should have been
considered timely because the trial court’s dismissal of his post-conviction motion
without prejudice at the same time the trial court appointed counsel impeded his ability to
file a timely habeas petition. He also argued that he was not alone in his predicament and
cited several other unrelated state court criminal cases which he claimed resulted in
similarly unfair results. Now, Petitioner provides the docket sheets for the previously
referenced state court cases involving criminal proceedings unrelated to his own. This
claimed “new evidence” would not have produced a different result if presented before
the challenged judgment. The petition was not timely filed and the filing of docket sheets
for unrelated state court criminal proceedings does not change that conclusion.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s “Rule 60(b)(2) Motion to Rehear
2

Order Denying Relief” (ECF No. 67).
SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2019

s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on March 12, 2019, the foregoing document was served on counsel
of record via electronic means and upon Anthony Williams via First Class mail at the
address below:
ANTHONY WILLIAMS
316227
G. ROBERT COTTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
3500 N. ELM ROAD
JACKSON, MI 49201

s/J. McCoy
Case Manager

3