Jackson v. Hines
Filing
108
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that Petitioner's "Rule 60(b) Motion" (Dkt. # 107) is denied ; denying certificate of appealability; denying 107 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (RGG, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ROBERT EARL JACKSON,
Petitioner,
v.
REGINALD HINES, Warden,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 04-CV-0195-CVE-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a closed 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus action. On October 19, 2016, Petitioner,
a state inmate appearing pro se, filed his ninth motion for post-judgment relief (Dkt. # 107). This
time, Petitioner claims that the Court erred in imposing a procedural bar on one of his habeas claims.
For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion is denied.
Petitioner filed this most recent motion more than nine years after entry of judgment (Dkt.
# 48), and only five days after the Court’s dismissal of his last Rule 60(b) motion as a successive
habeas petition filed without prior authorization from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Dkt.
# 106. In contrast to that last motion, the instant motion is not a successive habeas petition because
it does not contest the merits of a conviction. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 n. 4, 533,
538 (2005); see also Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213, 1224-25 (10th Cir. 2006); In re: Pickard, 681
F.3d 1201, 1206 (10th Cir. 2012) (explaining that “a Rule 60(b) motion is actually a second-orsuccessive petition if the success of the motion depends on a determination that the court had
incorrectly ruled on the merits in the habeas proceeding”). Accordingly, Petitioner’s most recent
motion shall be adjudicated as a “true” Rule 60(b) motion. Spitznas, 464 F.3d at 1225.
Rule 60(b)(6) “is a catchall provision, allowing relief from judgment for ‘any other reason
justifying relief.’” Davis v. Kan. Dep’t of Corrs., 507 F.3d 1246, 1248 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)). “Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is extraordinary and may only be granted in
exceptional circumstances.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In the habeas
context, relief under Rule 60(b)(6) “will rarely occur.” Omar-Muhammad v. Williams, 484 F.3d
1262, 1264 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 535).
Petitioner claims that the Court erred in finding that he had failed to demonstrate “cause” to
overcome the procedural bar applicable to his claim challenging the trial judge’s sentencing policy.
See Dkt. # 107 at 2. As “cause,” Petitioner argues that the factual basis of his defaulted claim was
not reasonably available at the time of his direct appeal because he did not learn of the trial judge’s
sentencing policy until after the conclusion of his direct appeal. Id. Petitioner’s claim is belied by
the record. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals concluded Petitioner’s direct appeal on
November 20, 2002. However, as determined by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in considering
Petitioner’s habeas appeal, Petitioner “was aware as of June 13, 2002” of the factual basis of his
defaulted claim. See Dkt. # 62 at 5-6. Based on that finding, the claim raised in the Rule 60(b)
motion is without merit and cannot serve as “cause” to overcome the procedural bar. Petitioner fails
to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” justifying relief from judgment. For that reason, the
Rule 60(b) motion is denied.
Petitioner is advised that any appeal from this ruling will be deemed frivolous and not taken
in good faith. As a result, Petitioner will not be allowed to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis
should he file a notice of appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). He will be required to prepay the full
$505 filing fee for any appeal from this ruling.
2
Certificate of Appealability
A movant is required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal from the denial of a
Rule 60(b) motion. Spitznas, 464 F.3d at 1218. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, the court may issue
a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right,” and the court “indicates which specific issue or issues satisfy [that] showing.”
A movant can satisfy that standard by demonstrating that the issues raised are debatable among
jurists, that a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions deserve further
proceedings. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893
(1983)). When the Court’s ruling is based on procedural grounds, a movant must demonstrate that
“jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of
a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. In this case, nothing suggests that the
Court’s procedural ruling resulting in the denial of Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion is debatable. For
that reason, a certificate of appealability is denied.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Rule 60(b) Motion”
(Dkt. # 107) is denied. A certificate of appealability is denied.
DATED this 21st day of October, 2016.
3
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?