Grooms v. State of Mississippi
Filing
19
OPINION AND ORDER denying (17) Motion for Reconsideration in case 1:20-cv-00007-DMB-DAS. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 6/14/22. Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-00007-DMB-DAS, 1:20-cv-00036-DMB-DAS (jla)
Case: 1:20-cv-00007-DMB-DAS Doc #: 19 Filed: 06/14/22 1 of 4 PageID #: 361
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
JOHN GROOMS
PETITIONER
V.
NO. 1:20-CV-7-DMB-DAS
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
RESPONDENT
consolidated with
JOHN GROOMS
PETITIONER
V.
NO. 1:20-CV-36-DMB-DAS
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
John Grooms moves for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ
of habeas corpus. Because the Court concludes that the motion is untimely and that Grooms
otherwise has failed to show extraordinary circumstances, reconsideration will be denied.
I
Procedural History
On or about January 2, 2020, John Grooms filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. Doc. #1. 1 United States
Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders issued an order requiring Grooms “to keep this court informed
of his current address” and cautioning Grooms that failure to do so could “lead to dismissal of his
lawsuit.” Doc. #5 at 2. On May 14, 2020, indicating that Grooms had been released on parole on
April 7, 2020, and had not informed the Court of his current address, the State moved to dismiss
1
The Court cites the docket in the lead case, No. 1:20-cv-7.
Case: 1:20-cv-00007-DMB-DAS Doc #: 19 Filed: 06/14/22 2 of 4 PageID #: 362
Grooms’ petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, as unexhausted. 2 Doc.
#7. “Because Grooms ha[d] failed to inform the Court of his current address,” the Court on
October 8, 2020, granted the motion to dismiss “to the extent it [sought] dismissal for failure to
prosecute.”3 Doc. #14.
Over a year later, on or about November 9, 2021, Grooms submitted a letter to the Court
seeking reconsideration of the dismissal, claiming he was unaware his case was dismissed and that
the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) “had [his] address and was supposed to
forward [his] mail.” Doc. #17. Construing the letter as a motion for reconsideration, the State
filed a response, arguing Grooms’ motion is untimely and that he cannot show extraordinary
circumstances justify relief.4 Doc. #18. Grooms did not reply.
II
Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)5 provides that a “court may relieve a party or its
legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for any of six reasons: (1)
“mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;” (2) “newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule
59(b);” (3) “fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party;” (4) “the judgment is void;” (5) “the judgment has been satisfied,
2
On May 18, 2020, the case was consolidated with another case filed by Grooms concerning a challenge to the same
sentence. Doc. #9.
3
The Court noted that “[a]fter the motion to dismiss was filed, two documents sent by the Court to Grooms were
returned as undeliverable.” Doc. #14 at 1.
4
The State also renewed its argument that Grooms’ claims are unexhausted. Doc. #18 at 8.
5
Applying the liberal standard for pro se litigants set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the Court
construes Grooms’ request as a motion under Rule 60. Because Grooms filed his motion more than twenty-eight days
after the judgment, it is properly analyzed under Rule 60(b) rather than Rule 59(e). See Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma,
Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n.2 (5th Cir. 2012).
2
Case: 1:20-cv-00007-DMB-DAS Doc #: 19 Filed: 06/14/22 3 of 4 PageID #: 363
released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;” or (6) “any other reason that justifies relief.” “A
motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time--and for reasons (1), (2), and (3)
no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Where a habeas petitioner relies on the catchall provision of 60(b)(6), he “is
required to show extraordinary circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” Diaz
v. Stephens, 731 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
III
Analysis
Grooms’ request for reconsideration of the dismissal of his petition can only reasonably be
made pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) or Rule 60(b)(6).
As a Rule 60(b)(1) motion, the motion is untimely since it was filed after the one-year
deadline, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1), unless Grooms can show good cause for the delay, see In re
Osborne, 379 F.3d 277, 283 (5th Cir. 2004). The only argument Grooms offers for the delay is
that he was unaware of the dismissal because MDOC did not forward his mail. Doc. #17.
However, Judge Sanders’ order explicitly placed on Grooms, not MDOC, the burden of “keep[ing]
this court informed of his current address.” Accordingly, Grooms fails to show good cause for his
untimely motion.
If his request for relief is considered a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, Grooms must show
extraordinary circumstances to be entitled to such.
“In determining whether extraordinary
circumstances are present, a court may consider a wide range of factors … includ[ing], in an
appropriate case, the risk of injustice to the parties and the risk of undermining the public’s
confidence in the judicial process.” Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 778 (2017) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Grooms fails to present any argument that dismissal of his case based on his own
3
Case: 1:20-cv-00007-DMB-DAS Doc #: 19 Filed: 06/14/22 4 of 4 PageID #: 364
failure to comply with the Court’s order will result in an injustice. 6 Accordingly, he has failed to
show extraordinary circumstances to warrant the relief he seeks.
IV
Conclusion
Grooms’ motion for reconsideration [17] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 14th day of June, 2022.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Under the circumstances, the Court believes he would not be able to do so. There is nothing indicating that Grooms
made any attempt to notify the Court of his updated address or that he was prevented from checking on the status of
his case, particularly since he appears to have been released on parole. See Docs. #7-1, #7-2.
4
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?