Williams v. Brewer

Filing 11

OPINION and ORDER Denying 10 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HENRY LEE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,

Civil No. 4:17-11904
HON. LINDA V. PARKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

v.
SHAWN BREWER,
Respondent,
_____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 10)
Before the Court is petitioner Henry Lee Williams’ Rule 60(b) motion for
relief from judgment, in which he asks the Court to reopen his case and give him
additional time to cure the copy deficiency. For the reasons that follow, the motion
is DENIED without prejudice to petitioner filing a new habeas petition.
On June 19, 2017, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued an “Order to
Correct Deficiency,” to which Petitioner was ordered to submit two copies of his
petition for writ of habeas corpus in order for the Clerk of the Court to effect service
upon the respondent and the Michigan Attorney General’s Office. Petitioner was
given thirty days to comply with the order.

1

On October 11, 2017, this Court summarily dismissed the petition without
prejudice because petitioner failed to timely cure the deficiency.
Petitioner filed his motion for relief from judgment on December 28, 2018. 1
In his motion for relief from judgment, Petitioner indicates that because of his
limited education, he was given a “jailhouse lawyer,” i.e., a fellow prisoner to assist
him with his habeas petition. Based on faulty advice from this prisoner, Petitioner
only filed one copy of the petition with this Court and attempted to directly serve the
Attorney General of the State of Michigan with another copy. Petitioner claims that
when he received the order to correct the deficiency, the prisoner who had been
helping him with his petition was placed in segregation for fighting. The prisoner
had the only legible copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus in his possession.
Petitioner asked a sergeant at the prison to retrieve this copy of the petition so that
Petitioner could make copies. The sergeant promised to do so, but then retired from
employment before obtaining the copy. In the meantime, the prisoner who had been
assisting petitioner was transferred to another facility, along with the sole copy of
the habeas petition. Petitioner has continued to make attempts through prison staff
and fellow inmates to locate this prisoner and attempt to retrieve his petition.

Under the prison mailbox rule, this Court will assume that petitioner actually filed
his Rule 60(b) motion on December 28, 2018, the date that it was signed and dated.
See e.g. Towns v. U.S., 190 F. 3d 468, 469 (6th Cir. 1999).

1

2

Finally, Petitioner was advised by a second prison paralegal to write this Court to
obtain a copy of the petition in order to make the required copies. Petitioner claims
he wrote this Court on November 26, 2018 and obtained a copy of the petition.
Petitioner asks this Court to reopen the petition and grant him additional time to
provide this Court with the requisite copies.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), a motion for relief from judgment can be granted
for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior
judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise
vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have
prospective application; or,
(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the
judgment.
“Regardless of circumstances, no court can consider a motion brought under
Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3) a year after judgment.” In re G.A.D., Inc., 340 F. 3d 331,
334 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and McDowell v. Dynamics Corp.
of America, 931 F. 2d 380, 384 (6th Cir. 1991)). Petitioner’s current motion, in
which he argues reasons to excuse his failure to timely cure the copy deficiency, is
3

clearly based on subsection (1), excusable neglect. See, e.g., Williams v.
Wolfenbarger, No. 07-CV-12333, 2008 WL 108864, at * 2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 7,
2008).
This Court summarily dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus on
October 11, 2017. Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment was filed with this
Court on December 28, 2018. Because Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from
judgment was filed more than one year after the Court denied the petition for writ of
habeas corpus, petitioner is not entitled to relief from judgment.
Petitioner attempts to use the catch-all provision of subsection (6) of Rule
60(b), but he is unable to obtain relief under this subsection. A litigant seeking relief
under Rule 60(b)(6) must show “extraordinary circumstances” which justify the
reopening of a final judgment, “and such circumstances rarely occur in habeas
cases.” Landrum v. Anderson, 813 F.3d 330, 335 (6th Cir. 2016). Petitioner failed
to show extraordinary circumstances that would justify granting him relief under
Rule 60(b)(6). The original dismissal was without prejudice to petitioner filing a
new habeas petition. Petitioner is free when he files that new petition to argue that
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s statute of limitations should be
equitably tolled based on the circumstances enumerated in his current Rule 60(b)
motion.

4

More importantly, a motion for relief from judgment may not be brought
under Rule 60(b)(6) “if it is premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in
clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Mitchell v. Rees, 261 F. App’x 825, 830 (6th Cir.
2008) (citing Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 and n.
11 (1988)). Motions for relief from judgment that are subject to the one-year
limitations period may not be disguised as motions with a more generous limitations
period. See Kalamazoo River Study Group v. Rockwell Intern., 355 F. 3d 674, 588
(6th Cir. 2004). Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion is clearly based on one of the first
three subsections of Rule 60(b), thus it would be error for this Court to grant
petitioner relief based on 60(b)(6). Mitchell, 261 F. App’x at 830.
Accordingly, the motion for relief from judgment is DENIED. The denial is
without prejudice to petitioner filing a new habeas petition under a new case number.
Petitioner is free at that time to file a motion for equitable tolling of the statute of
limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 21, 2019
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
and/or pro se parties on this date, May 21, 2019, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class
mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

5