JACKSON v. WINGARD
Filing
56
OPINION setting for the reasons the motion for relief from judgment 55 will be DENIED. An appropriate order will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 11/25/15. (kjm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HUBERT JACKSON,
Petitioner,
v.
TREVOR A. WINGARD,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 14-1530
OPINION
Pending before the court is a second motion for relief from a void judgment filed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) by petitioner Hubert Jackson (“petitioner”).
(ECF Nos. 55.) Petitioner argues that this court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain his
habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the court dismissed as time
barred because it was filed more than twenty-six years after the seven judgments in issue in his §
2254 motion became final. (ECF No. 55.) Petitioner explains that this court did not receive a
“certified copy of a judgment of sentence in conformity with 42 Pa.C.S. § 6103” with respect to
the seven judgments entered against him in the Court of Common Plea of Allegheny Count, and,
under those circumstances, this court “never proved the state court’s adversary proceeding was
disposed of,” petitioner did not have standing to challenge those proceedings, and this court did
not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear petitioner’s § 2254 motion. (Id.)
On September 11, 2015, this court issued an order denying petitioner’s first motion for
relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(4). (ECF No. 52.) Petitioner in his § 2254 motion argues
that in his state court criminal cases a judgment was never entered against him because the
judges in those cases never filed a “judgment of sentence” on the docket. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 12, 14.)
This court in its opinion setting forth the reasons petitioner’s first Rule 60(b)(4) motion would be
denied rejected that argument. This court explained that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
previously held that the purported failure of a state court to record petitioner’s sentence on the
docket is not a basis for relief. (ECF No. 52 at 11 (citing Jackson v. Sec. Pa. Dep’t of
Corrections, 598 F. A’ppx 815, 816 (3d Cir. 2015).) This court also noted that even if the state
court mistakenly failed to record petitioner’s sentences on its docket, the mistake was clerical in
nature and not a basis for federal habeas relief. (ECF No. 52 at 12 (citing Civ. Action No. 991793, ECF No. 17 at 1-2).)
The argument set forth by petitioner in his second Rule 60(b)(4) motion is in substance
the same as petitioner’s previous arguments that were rejected by the court in this case, i.e.,
petitioner is entitled to federal habeas relief because the state court in the seven cases at issue in
petitioner’s § 2254 motion did not enter a judgment of sentence on its docket.1 As the Third
1
To the extent petitioner’s second Rule 60(b)(4) motion can be construed as a motion for
reconsideration of the court’s opinion dated September 11, 2015, petitioner did not set forth a
valid basis upon which this court should reconsider its decision.
The purpose of a motion to reconsider is “to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to
present newly discovered evidence.” Bootay v. KBR, Inc., 437 F.App'x 140, 146–47 (3d
Cir.2011) (citing Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985)). In order to be
successful on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate a “definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed,” or that the court overlooked arguments that were
previously made. United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D.Pa.2003). There are three
circumstances in which a court may grant a motion for reconsideration: (1) there has been an
intervening change in the law; (2) new evidence is now available that was not available when the
court entered judgment; or (3) there is a need to correct a clear error of law or fact, or to prevent
manifest injustice. FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e); Allah v. Ricci, 532 F.App'x 48, 51 (3d Cir.2013) (citing
Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir.2010)); Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.1999) (citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194,
1218 (3d Cir.1995)). By reason of the interest in finality, at least at the district court level,
motions for reconsideration should be sparingly granted. Rottmund v. Cont'l Assurance Co., 813
F.Supp. 1104, 1107 (E.D.Pa.1992).
Motions for reconsideration are not designed to provide litigants with a “second bite at
the apple.” Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir.1995). A motion
2
Circuit Court of Appeals and this court has recognized, the state court’s failure to enter a
judgment of sentence in petitioner’s underlying state court cases is not a basis for federal habeas
relief. Petitioner’s second Rule 60(b)(4) motion (ECF No. 55) will—for the same reasons set
forth in the court’s opinion dated September 11, 2015 (ECF No. 52)—be DENIED. An
appropriate order will be entered.
BY THE COURT,
Dated: November 25, 2015
/s/ JOY FLOWERS CONTI
Joy Flowers Conti
Chief United States District Court Judge
for reconsideration is not to be used to relitigate, or “rehash,” issues the court already decided, or
to ask a district court to rethink a decision it, rightly or wrongly, already made. Williams v. City
of Pittsburgh, 32 F.Supp.2d 236, 238 (W.D.Pa.1998); Reich v. Compton, 834 F.Supp. 753, 755
(E.D.Pa.1993), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 57 F.3d 270 (3d Cir.1995); Keyes v. Nat'l R.R.
Passenger Corp., 766 F.Supp. 277, 280 (E.D.Pa.1991). A motion for reconsideration is not to be
used as a way to advance additional arguments that the litigant could have made, but chose not to
make, sooner, or as an opportunity for a litigant, having lost, to change theories of the case and
advance new, often contradictory, evidence in support. Bell v. City of Phila., 275 F.App'x 157,
160 (3d Cir.2008); Spence v. City of Phila., 147 F .App'x 289, 291–92 (3d Cir.2005); Bhatnagar,
52 F.3d at 1231; Trenton v. Scott Paper Co., 832 F.2d 806, 810 (3d Cir.1987); Miller v. Court of
Common Pleas of Erie Cnty., No. 12–206, 2014 WL 108585, at *2 (W.D.Pa. Jan.10, 2014).
Petitioner in his second Rule 60(b)(4) motion has not shown that: (1) there has been an
intervening change in the law; (2) new evidence is now available that was not available when the
court entered judgment; or (3) there is a need to correct a clear error of law or fact, or to prevent
manifest injustice. Under those circumstances, petitioner’s second Rule 60(b)(4) motion would
be denied even if the court construed it as a motion for reconsideration.
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?