Booker v. Bodison
ORDER denying 55 Motion to Vacate Void Judgments - Petitioner's underlying judgements of conviction. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 1/22/13.(kmca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Patrick L. Booker,
C.A. No. 8:10-1098-HMH
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court on Patrick L. Booker’s (“Booker”) motion for relief from
judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After careful
consideration of the motion and the record in this case, the court denies Booker’s motion.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 5, 2003, Booker pled guilty in a South Carolina Court of General Sessions
to multiple counts of armed robbery, assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, car
jacking, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, threatening the life of
a public official, assault on a correctional facility employee, and indecent exposure. (Resp’t
Mem. Supp. Summ J. Ex. 1 (App. at 14-19, 28, 32), ECF No. 18.) He was sentenced to twenty
years’ imprisonment. (Id. Ex. 1 (App. at 56-57).) Because Booker pled guilty to a “no parole
offense,” he was required by South Carolina law to participate in a community supervision
program (“CSP”) subsequent to his release from prison. S.C. Code Ann. § 24-21-560.
After filing six unsuccessful applications for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) in state court,
Booker filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on April 27,
2010.1 Booker alleged that his guilty plea was involuntarily tendered because the sentencing
judge failed to inform him of the mandatory CSP component of his sentence. (Booker § 2254
Pet. 5, ECF No. 1.) In an order dated May 11, 2011, the court granted Respondent’s motion for
summary judgment, finding Booker’s petition time-barred. On May 20, 2011, Booker filed a
motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or amend the
court’s May 11, 2011 Order.2 The court found that Booker failed to show a clear error of law,
and denied his motion to alter or amend judgment. Booker filed an appeal with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on July 14, 2011. The Fourth Circuit dismissed Booker’s
appeal and denied a certificate of appealability. Booker v. Bodison, No. 11-6909, 2011 WL
4867535, at *1 (4th Cir. Oct. 14, 2011) (unpublished). In the instant motion, Booker argues that
the court must vacate his underlying state court judgment of conviction under Rule 60(b)(4) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it is void.
II. DISCUSSION OF THE LAW
“On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order
or proceeding [if] . . . the judgment is void.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, including Rule 60(b), however, only govern civil actions filed in federal district
courts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. “[T]he court finds . . . no ground upon which any provision of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can authorize relief from a state court criminal judgment or a
state court habeas judgment.” Miller v. Johnson, No. 7:06CV00611, 2010 WL 3783773, at *1
(W.D.Va. Sept. 28, 2010) (unpublished). In his motion, Booker argues that his state court
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
criminal judgment should be vacated as void. However, Rule 60(b)(4) does not authorize this
relief. Based on the foregoing, Booker’s motion seeking to have the court vacate “the underlying
judgements [sic] of conviction” pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) is denied. (Booker Mot. Vacate J. 1,
ECF No. 55.)
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Booker’s Rule 60(b) motion, docket number 55, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
January 22, 2013
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The movant is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30)
days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?