James v. USA

Filing 24

ORDER denying 19 motion for relief from judgment. Signed on 2/9/15 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Order mailed to Cleophus D. James.) (Matthes, Renea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
CLEOPHUS D. JAMES,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14-cv-00572-NKL

ORDER
Movant Cleophus D. James requests relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) and
(6). [Doc. 19.] The motion is denied.
James filed this case under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, requesting an order vacating, setting
aside, or correcting his sentence. The Court granted Respondent United States of
America’s motion to dismiss, with prejudice. [Doc. 8.] James then filed a motion for
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 59(e), and the Court denied it. [Doc. 17]. Now
in his motion under Rule 60(b)(1) and (6), James challenges the Court’s prior ruling that
Descamps v. U.S., 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013), does not apply apply retroactively to the
collateral attack of a sentence, as the Court explained in its order of dismissal, and again
in its order denying his motion for reconsideration.
Generally, “Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only the most exceptional cases.”
White v. Nat’l Football League, 756 F.3d 585, 596 (8th Cir. 2014) (quotation and citations
omitted). The case before the Court presents no exceptional circumstances. Under Rule
60(b)(1), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment based on mistake, which

“encompass judicial error or omission.” Knox v. Lichtenstein, 654 F.2d 19, 22 (8th Cir.
1981). But James simply disagrees with the Court’s view of Descamps. He identifies no
judicial error or omission, and the Court, having reviewed its prior orders, discerns none.
For much the same reason subsection (b)(1) provides James no grounds for relief,
subsection (b)(6), which affords relief for “any other reason,” also fails to. A district
court’s interpretation of law that is “by all appearances correct under … prevailing
interpretation[s]” does not establish extraordinary circumstances that will justify relief
under Rule 60(b)(6). See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536 (2005). Because the
Court followed the prevailing interpretation of Descamps, James is not entitled to relief
under subsection (b)(6).
Accordingly, James’ motion under Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) for relief from judgment
[Doc. 19] is denied.

s/ Nanette K. Laughrey
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
United States District Judge
Dated: February 9, 2015
Jefferson City, Missouri

2