Jackson v. USA

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, as to Lorenza Jackson, the Court is precluded from reviewing petitioner's Rule 60(b)(1) motion, and his motions [Docs. 27 , 30 ] are DENIED as moot.. Signed by District Judge Thomas A. Varlan on 12/9/22. (c/m Lorenza Jackson 49578-039 GILMER FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. BOX 6000 GLENVILLE, WV 26351 ) (ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
LORENZA JACKSON,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

3:18-CV-74-TAV-JEM

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is petitioner’s motion to reconsider [Doc. 27] and his motion for
leave to amend his motion to reconsider [Doc. 30]. In his motion to reconsider [Doc. 27],
petitioner asks the Court to reconsider its Order denying his Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 60(b)(1) motion as untimely [See Doc. 26]. He argues that his Rule
60(b)(1) motion was timely filed and should not have been denied on this basis.
In support, petitioner attaches to his motion to amend an envelope with a dated postmark
[Doc. 30, p. 4].
On February 26, 2021, this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion [Doc. 19] and
Judgment Order [Doc. 20] denying petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion [Doc. 1]. On
March 19, 2021, a notice of appeal as to the Court’s Memorandum Opinion [Doc. 19] and
Judgment Order [Doc. 20] was filed [Doc. 21]. On December 7, 2021, the Sixth Circuit
issued an order disposing of all of petitioner’s claims and declining to issue a Certificate
of Appealability [Doc. 24].

After the Sixth Circuit issued its order, petitioner filed a motion in this Court
pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) [Doc. 25], arguing that the Court misapplied a Federal Rule of
Evidence in its Memorandum Opinion [Doc. 19]. The Court denied the motion for being
untimely filed [Doc. 26]. Petitioner now seeks review of the Court’s denial of his Rule
60(b)(1) motion because he has evidence that he timely filed his motion [See Docs. 27, 30].
The Court recognizes that petitioner has provided the Court with evidence that his
Rule 60(b)(1) motion may have been timely filed [See Doc. 30, p. 4]. However, even if
petitioner’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion was timely filed, petitioner raised on appeal those same
arguments that petitioner raised in his Rule 60(b)(1) motion [See Doc. 25; 6th Cir. ECF
No. 21-5270, Doc. 7, pp. 8–9]. The Sixth Circuit ultimately affirmed this Court’s denial
of petitioner’s § 2255 motion [Doc. 1] and declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability
[See Doc. 24; 6th Cir. ECF No. 21-5270, Doc. 8]. Arguments that were already presented
and denied on appeal are unreviewable on a Rule 60(b) motion. See GenCorp, Inc. v. Olin
Corp., 477 F.3d 368, 373 (6th Cir. 2007). Thus, the Court is precluded from reviewing
petitioner’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion, and his motions [Docs. 27, 30] are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2