Wright v. Mississippi State Of, et al

Filing 20

ORDERED that the petitioner's 19 Letter to the Court, which the Court construes as a motion to reopen this case, is DENIED. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 5/11/2015 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
RONNIE WRIGHT
VS.

PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:01-cv-50(DCB)

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

RESPONDENT
ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the petitioner Ronnie
Wright’s letter to the Court of April 17, 2015 (filed April 27,
2015), in which he states he wishes to appeal his state court
capital murder conviction and life sentence entered by the Circuit
Court of Yazoo County, Mississippi, in 1995.
Wright previously filed, in 2001, a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

That petition was

denied on September 26, 2002, and Final Judgment was entered.
Wright also filed an “Application and Requirements” addressing the
denial of his habeas petition on August 29, 2014.

The Court

construed the pro se pleading as a motion to reopen Wright’s case,
and denied the motion on September 5, 2014.
The Court also construes the petitioner’s present pro se
pleading as a motion to reopen his case.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that the
Court “may relieve a party or its legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for any one
of certain enumerated grounds, including mistake,
inadvertence,
surprise,
excusable
neglect,
newly
discovered evidence, fraud by an opposing party, void
judgment, release and satisfaction, or “any other reason
that justifies relief.”

Davis v. Stephens, 2014 WL 4097631, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19,
2014)(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)-(6)). “A state prisoner is not
entitled to use Rule 60(b) as a broad opening for a second request
in the federal court to overturn his conviction.

Still, a Rule

60(b) motion, filed several years after an inmate’s Section 2254
application had been denied, is in some circumstances an available
option.”

Balentine v. Thaler, 626 F.3d 842, 846-47 (5th Cir.

2010)(citing Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528-29 (2005)).
A Rule 60(b) motion cannot challenge the merits of a prior
habeas decision, but must attack a defect in the integrity of the
habeas proceedings; in other words, the motion must show “that a
previous ruling which precluded a merits determination was in error
- for example, a denial for such reasons as failure to exhaust,
procedural default, or statute-of-limitations bar.”

Gonzalez, 545

U.S. at 532 n.4. Wright appealed his conviction to the Mississippi
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment of conviction and
sentence on December 2, 1997.

Wright did not petition the United

States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari, so his judgment became
final ninety days later on March 2, 1998.

No post-conviction

motions were filed by Wright on or before March 2, 1999, one year
after his conviction became final.

Wright filed his § 2254 habeas

petition on February 21, 2001, and it was denied as untimely by
this Court on September 26, 2002.
The petitioner’s present motion does not attack a defect in

2

the integrity of the habeas proceedings.
permits

a

court

excusable neglect.

to

relieve

a

party

However, Rule 60(b)(1)

from

final

judgment

for

Wright argues that he is illiterate and lacks

knowledge of the law, but neither of these constitutes excusable
neglect.

See Felder v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 168, 171-72 (noting that

ignorance of the law, lack of knowledge of filing deadlines, a
prisoner’s pro se status, illiteracy, deafness, lack of legal
training, and actual innocence claims do not support equitable
tolling of the AEDPA statute of limitations).
Wright shows no grounds for the Court to reconsider its Final
Judgment.

He sets forth no intervening change in controlling law,

new evidence, or need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.

His motion shall therefore be denied.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Ronnie Wright’s letter to
the Court of April 17, 2015, which the Court construes as a motion
to reopen his case, is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 11th day of May, 2015.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3