Gibbons v. Knutson

Filing 88

ORDER - Gibbons's Motions for Rule 60 Relief (Doc. Nos. 67 & 70 ) are respectfully DENIED.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 6/19/2019. (las)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Andrew James Gibbons,

Civil No. 18-914 (DWF/HB)

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

Warden Nate Knutson,
Respondent.

On March 7, 2019, the Court issued an Order Adopting Report and
Recommendation, wherein the Court overruled Petitioner Andrew James Gibbons’s
objections to Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer’s January 29, 2019 Report and
Recommendation, adopted the Report and Recommendation and, among other things,
denied Gibbons’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc.
No. 63.) As a result, this action was dismissed with prejudice. (Id.) On March 8,
2019, judgment was entered. (Doc. No. 64.) On March 11, 2019, Gibbons filed a
Motion to Grant Amendment to Objections. (Doc. No. 65.) In this self-styled motion,
Gibbons sought permission to correct citations in and to amend certain portions of his
prior objection the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 65.) In an order dated
March 28, 2019, the Court denied Gibbons’s Motion to Grant Amendment of Objections,
noting that the submission was untimely and nothing contained in the proposed

amendments would have changed the Court’s prior order adopting the Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. No. 66.)
On April 4, 2019, Gibbons filed two motions under Rule 60 for relief from final
judgment. (Doc. Nos. 67 & 70.) On the same day, Gibbons filed a notice of appeal to
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. No. 72.) Because Gibbons has filed an
appeal challenging this Court’s decision in this habeas action, jurisdiction has been
transferred to the Court of Appeals. On this ground, alone, Gibbons’s motions are
properly denied. However, even considering the pending motions on their merits, the
Court notes that, while brought within a reasonable time, Gibbons has not set forth
“extraordinary circumstances” to justify the relief requested under Rule 60(b)(6). See,
e.g., Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 n.4 (2005). Specifically, Gibbons argues
that he did not procedurally default his claim. Gibbons’s disagreement with the Court’s
analysis on this point does not constitute an “extraordinary circumstance.” Indeed, he
has litigated the issue and can pursue the matter in his appeal.
For the above reasons and based upon the review of the record, all of the
arguments and submissions of the parties, and the Court being otherwise duly advised in
the premises, the Court hereby ORDERS that Gibbons’s Motions for Rule 60 Relief
(Doc. Nos. [67] & [70]) are respectfully DENIED.

Dated: June 19, 2019

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

2