PARKER v. HENDRICKS, et al
Filing
114
OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 12/19/2017. (ld, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
THOMAS PARKER,
Petitioner
v.
ROY L. HENDRICKS, et al.,
Respondents.
Civil Action No. 3-914 (SRC)
OPINION
CHESLER, District Judge
This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner’s “Motion to Vacate the District Court
October 17, 2016 Order Denying Fifth Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) Motion, Pursuant to Subsections (4)
and (6).” (Docket No. 112). Respondents have opposed the motion. (Docket No. 113.) The Court
has considered the parties’ submissions and, for the reasons stated below, the Court will deny
Petitioner’s motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
In January 2003, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2254, challenging his state court conviction and sentence. (Docket No. 1.) The Court denied his
habeas petition on August 21, 2009. (Docket Nos. 35, 36). In the years since then, including the
present motion, Petitioner has filed ten motions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
seeking to challenge the denial of his habeas petition and the subsequent denials of his motions for
1
reconsideration. 1 (Docket Nos. 37, 54, 59, 66, 71, 86, 92, 97, 104, 112.) Each of the previous
motions were denied. (Docket Nos. 47, 48; 62; 68; 82, 83; 89; 95; 100, 101; 107, 108.) Petitioner
appealed each of this Court’s orders denying his Rule 60(b) motions to the Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, which denied those appeals.
In this Court’s most recent consideration of this case on October 17, 2016, the Court denied
Petitioner’s “fifth” motion under Rule 60(b). (Opinion and Order, Docket Nos. 107, 108.) In that
motion, Petitioner alleged, as he has in prior motions, a factual error in the order denying his
petition for habeas corpus relief. (Docket No. 97.) Petitioner also argued that the Court failed to
address his arguments under the “catch-all” provision of Rule 60(b)(6) in its March 17, 2016,
Opinion and Order denying his fourth motion for reconsideration. (Id.) The Court denied
Petitioner’s fifth motion, concluding that Petitioner was “once again . . . rehashing the underlying
arguments he has previously presented to this Court and to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.”
(Docket No. 107 at 3.)
Petitioner brings his present motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and
(6). (Docket No. 112 at 1.) Petitioner again argues that this Court failed to address his claims
presented in his prior motion. (Docket No. 112 at 1.) Specifically, Petitioner claims that the Court
“failed to rule on . . . the claim which pertain to the fact that the Judge had the material state-court
facts wrong he denied habeas petition on August 21, 2009.” (Id.)
II.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides grounds for relief from a Final Judgment,
Order or Proceeding for five enumerated reasons and for “any other reason that justifies relief.”
1
A number of Petitioner’s motions were duplicative and two were denied for lack of jurisdiction because Petitioner
filed the motions during the pendency of his appeal of the same order. Thus, Petitioner’s instant motion addresses
this Court’s denial of his “fifth” motion for reconsideration, though Petitioner has filed ten such motions.
2
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?