Byas v. Perry
ORDER denying 5 Motion relief from judgment. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Civil No. 2:17-cv-10387
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT [dkt. 5]
Before the court is Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment. On February 15, 2017, this
Court summarily denied Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that it
constituted a prohibited successive application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) which
raised claims identical to ones presented in a prior habeas case. The Court also denied a certificate
of appealability and denied permission to appeal in forma pauperis.
Petitioner brings the present motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and
he seems to argue that this Court or perhaps the state courts improperly imposed a procedural bar
to review of his claims. The motion is poorly drafted, and therefore Petitioner’s legal position is far
from clear. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Petitioner’s application for habeas relief raised claims
identical to those raised in a previous habeas proceeding. See Byas v. Romanowski, No. 14-12013
(E.D. Mich. June 10, 2014). 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) provides that “[a] claim presented in a second
or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application
shall be dismissed.” The Court can discern no basis in Petitioner’s motion undermining the Court’s
disposition of the case.
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Relief
From Judgment [Dkt.5] is DENIED.
s/ Nancy G. Edmunds
Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: June 1, 2017
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Order was served by electronic means or U.S.
Mail to Counsel of Record and/or Pro Se Parties on June l, 2017
s/ Carol J. Bethel
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?