Grasty v. Phillips

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM & ORDER, Petitioner's motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24 is DENIED. A certificate of appealability (COA) is DENIED as to the Courts Rule 60(b) ruling. Petitioners motion to proceed in forma pauperis 26 is DENIED.. Signed by District Judge Curtis L. Collier on 2/15/22. (c/m Quinzell La'Won Grasty #478413 TROUSDALE TURNER CORRECTIONAL CENTER 140 MACON WAY HARTSVILLE, TN 37074) (ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
QUINZELL LA’WON GRASTY,
Petitioner,
v.
MIKE PARRIS, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-CV-247-CLC-SKL

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
This Court denied Petitioner Quinzell La’Won Grasty’s federal habeas petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 by judgment entered September 19, 2019 [Doc. 19], and the Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit subsequently denied Petitioner’s motion for a Certificate of Appealability
(“COA”) from that judgment [Doc. 22]. Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Motion for Relief from
Judgment or Order” pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. 24],
and his motion to proceed as a pauper [Doc. 26]. For the reasons set forth below, both motions
[Docs. 24 and 26] will be DENIED.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides enumerated grounds that allow

a court to relieve a party from operation of a final judgment or order. Johnson v. Unknown
Dellatifa, 357 F.3d 539, 543 (6th Cir. 2004) (“As a prerequisite to relief under Rule 60(b), a party
must establish that the facts of its case are within one of the enumerated reasons contained in Rule
60(b) that warrant relief from judgment.”). Rule 60(b) provides:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

Case 1:17-cv-00247-CLC-SKL Document 28 Filed 02/15/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2650

(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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Petitioner has filed his motion under subsection (b)(6), which is the “catchall provision” of
the statute that provides relief from judgment for any reason not captured by the other, more
specific provisions. West v. Carpenter, 790 F.3d 693, 696–97 (6th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
“Rule 60(b) does not allow a defeated litigant a second chance to convince the court to rule in his
or her favor by presenting new explanations, legal theories, or proof.” Tyler v. Anderson, 749 F.3d
499, 509 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Jinks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 250 F.3d 381, 385 (6th Cir. 2001)).
Rather, Rule 60(b)(6) relief applies only in “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances where
principles of equity mandate relief.” Id. However, such circumstances “rarely occur” in habeas
cases. Sheppard v. Robinson, 807 F.3d 815, 820 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545
U.S. 534, 535 (2005)). Whether a circumstance is “exceptional or extraordinary” requires a “caseby-case inquiry . . . [that] intensively balance[s] numerous factors, including the competing
policies of the finality of judgments and the incessant command of the court’s conscience that
justice be done in light of all the facts.” West, 790 F.3d at 697 (citation omitted).
II.

DISCUSSION
“A motion under Rule 60(b) may be treated as a second or successive habeas petition” “if

it asserts a ‘federal basis for relief from the state court's judgment of conviction,’ by ‘seek[ing] to
add a new ground for relief’ or ‘attack[ing] the federal court's previous resolution of a claim on

2
Case 1:17-cv-00247-CLC-SKL Document 28 Filed 02/15/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2651

the merits.’” Tyler, 749 F.3d at 506–07 (alterations in original) (quoting Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at
530, 532). A Rule 60(b) motion “is not ... a successive habeas petition if it does not assert, or
reassert, claims of error in the movant’s state conviction.” Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 538. Here,
Petitioner does not identify errors in how the Court analyzed the merits of his petition, nor does he
challenge any non-merits aspects of the Court’s resolution of his claims. Instead, he presents
ineffective assistance of counsel claims that were not raised in the previous petition [Compare
Doc. 25 with Doc. 2 at 12–17]. As such, his motion is appropriately treated as a second or
successive application for federal habeas relief. See Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 531–32 (finding
petitioner made habeas claim when he sought to add new ground for relief or “new evidence in
support of a claim already litigated” that required him to meet requirements for filing successive
petition). Therefore, Petitioner is ADVISED that in order to pursue the claims presented in the
instant motion, he must first obtain leave from the Sixth Circuit to proceed in this Court on a
successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3); Cress v. Palmer, 484 F.3d 844, 852 (6th Cir.
2007).
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. 24] is DENIED. A certificate of appealability (“COA”)
is DENIED as to the Court’s Rule 60(b) ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)
(holding COA should issue only where reasonable jurists would find it “debatable whether the
petition states a valid claim for the denial of a constitutional right” and would “find it debatable
whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling”); United States v. Hardin, 481 F.3d
924, 926 (6th Cir. 2007) (requiring COA to appeal denial of Rule 60(b) motion). Because

3
Case 1:17-cv-00247-CLC-SKL Document 28 Filed 02/15/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2652

Petitioner’s motion is not taken in good faith, Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
[Doc. 26] is DENIED. See Fed. R. App. P. 24.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
/s/
CURTIS L. COLLIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4
Case 1:17-cv-00247-CLC-SKL Document 28 Filed 02/15/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2653