DELVALLE v. MORTON, et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM & ORDER REOPENING CASE; Petitioner's request for reconsideration is DENIED; the Clerk of the Court shall close the file in this matter. Signed by Judge Faith S. Hochberg on 4/14/14. (jd, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CLOSED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ERNESTO DELVALLE,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIS MORTON,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 96-1995 (FSH)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

IT APPEARING THAT:
1. This petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied on
August 8, 1996.
2. Petitioner filed, on March 5, 2014, a letter requesting relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b). 1 Petitioner bases his argument on the matter of Alleyne v. United

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that “the court may relieve a party
. . . from final judgment, order or proceeding” on the grounds of:
(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, 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.
1

States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013); however, Alleyne may not be applied retroactively. See
United States v. Galindez, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 2887, at *5, 2014 WL 594329 (Feb. 18,
2014) (“Alleyne … has not been made retroactively applicable by the Supreme Court”)
(citing Simpson v. United States, 721 F.3d 875, 876 (7th Cir. 2013)).
THEREFORE, it is on this 14th day of April, 2014;
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall re-open the file in this matter; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Petitioner’s request for reconsideration is DENIED; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close the file in this matter.

s/ Faith S. Hochberg
FAITH S. HOCHBERG
United States District Judge

“‘The general purpose of Rule 60(b) . . . is to strike a proper balance between the conflicting
principles that litigation must be brought to an end and that justice must be done.’” Walsh v.
Krantz, 423 F. App’x 177, 179 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (quoting Boughner v. Sec’y of
Health, Educ. & Welfare, 572 F.2d 976, 977 (3d Cir. 1978)). “Rule 60(b) is a provision for
extraordinary relief and may be raised only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.”
Mendez v. Sullivan, 488 F. App’x 566, 568 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (citing Sawka v.
Healtheast, Inc., 989 F.2d 138, 140 (3d Cir. 1993)). “Rule 60(b) provides that a motion for
relief from judgment or order ‘shall be made within a reasonable time,’ or if based on mistake,
newly discovered evidence, or fraud, ‘not more than one year after the judgment, order, or
proceeding was entered or taken.” United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 288 n.3 (3d Cir.
2003).
2