Edwards v. Winn

Filing 80

ORDER Denying Amended Rule 60(b) Motion 74 , Motion for Reconsideration Re Judgment 77 and Motion to Appoint Counsel 78 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANDRE MONTEEK EDWARDS,
Case Number: 2:19-CV-10376
Petitioner,
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD
v.
THOMAS WINN,
Respondent.
/
ORDER DENYING AMENDED RULE 60(b) MOTION (#74),
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE JUDGMENT (#77),
AND MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (#78)
This matter is before the Court on various motions filed by Petitioner Andre
Monteek Edwards.

On March 31, 2022, an Opinion and Order denying the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed, along with a Judgment. (ECF Nos.
42, 43) Petitioner has since filed several post-judgment motions. On March 15,
2023, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an Order denying Petitioner’s
multiple applications for a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 55)

Petitioner

then filed Motions under Rule 60(b) which this Court transferred to the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 66) The Sixth Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s
appeal from this Order. (ECF No. 67) The Sixth Circuit denied Petitioner the
authorization to file successive habeas petitions and Petitioner’s request to return
his Rule 60(b) motion to the district court for consideration on the merits. (ECF
1

No. 72) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Petitioner’s current
motions.
In his Amended Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment, Petitioner
states that on December 6, 2023 (ECF No. 66), this Court transferred his prior Rule
60(b) motions to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 74, PageID.4012)
Petitioner then asserts that “[s]ubsequently, the Sixth Circuit remanded his case for
this Court to rule on his Rule 60(b) motion” and that he filed “this Amended Rule
60(b) motion for consideration under Rule 60(b)(6).” Id.
A review of the docket does not show that the Sixth Circuit remanded
Petitioner’s case for this Court to rule on his Rule 60(b) motion, and Petitioner has
not submitted a copy of any such order from the Sixth Circuit. In its February 2,
2024 Order, the Sixth Circuit ruled it lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner’s appeal
from this Court’s Order transferring Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motions to the Sixth
Circuit and dismissed the appeal. Edwards v. Cargor, Case No. 24-1029 (6th Cir.
Feb. 2, 2024); ECF No. 72, PageID.4009. In ruling on whether this Court properly
transferred Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motions, the Sixth Circuit denied authorization
to file a second or successive § 2254 habeas corpus petition and denied Petitioner’s
“request to return his Rule 60(b) motion to the district court for the consideration
on the merits.” In re: Andre Monteek Edwards, Case No. 23-2064 (6th Cir. Aug.
6, 2024); ECF No. 75, Page ID.4041. The Sixth Circuit found that it had “already
2

determined that Edwards was not entitled to a COA on that [ineffective assistance
of counsel] claim because it did not ‘deserve encouragement to proceed further.’”
Id. The Court therefore denies Petitioner’s Amended Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief
from Judgment and the Motion for Reconsideration re Judgement since the Sixth
Circuit did not authorize the Court to consider the merits of Petitioner’s motions.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Amended Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from
Judgment (ECF No. 74) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Motion for Reconsideration re
Judgment (ECF No. 77) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel
(ECF No. 78) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability not issue in
this matter because reasonable jurists would not find this Court’s assessment of
Petitioner’s motions to be debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 483-84 (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule
11(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
s/Denise Page Hood
DENISE PAGE HOOD
United States District Judge
Dated: March 5, 2025
3