Winding v. King et al

Filing 171

ORDER denying 169 Motion to Reopen Case; denying 170 Motion requesting free copies of various documents. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 5/1/2012 (PL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
JAMES C. WINDING, NO. K8115
versus

PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:05-cv-178-DCB-MTP

RONALD KING, Superintendent, and
JIM HOOD, Attorney General RESPONDENTS
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to
Reopen Case [docket entry no. 169] and Letter Motion [docket entry
no. 170] requesting free copies of various documents. As the Court
understands the Petitioner’s argument, he asks the Court to reopen
his case because he has evidence of his actual innocence. Having
reviewed the record in this case and having considered the merits
of the pending Motions, the Court finds the Petitioner’s requests
lack merit and denies the Motions for the following reasons:
As an initial matter, Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen Case
[docket entry no. 169] is not properly before the Court, as this
request qualifies as a second or successive motion for relief under
§ 2254. See Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings.
For the Petitioner to present his argument to this Court, he must
first seek permission from the Court of Appeals. See id.; see also
July 13, 2009 Order at 2, docket entry no. 146. To the extent that
this Motion could be construed as a Rule 60(b) motion, see Gonzalez
v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), it is denied because the evidence
to which the Petitioner refers is not “newly discovered.” To

overcome this hurdle, the Petitioner asks the Court to excuse his
failure to reference this evidence in his previous filings because
of his unstable mental state. This explanation is not convincing,
inasmuch as the Petitioner has thoroughly prosecuted his case in
this

Court

since

2004–the

year

the

Petitioner

sustained

the

injuries which led to his mental condition. Furthermore, the Court
has

examined

the

basis

of

the

Petitioner’s

claim

of

actual

innocence and finds it without merit.
As to the Petitioner’s request that the Court provide him with
free copies of various documents, the Court denies this Motion
because

the

Petitioner

has

not

provided

the

Court

with

a

meritorious reason to assess to the public further costs associated
with his case. The Court once again directs the Petitioner to the
Local Rules of the Court for information on how to obtain records
in this case. See Sep. 30, 2010 Order, docket entry no. 168.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen Case
[docket entry no. 169] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Letter Motion [docket
entry no. 170] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 1st day of May, 2012.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE