Watson v. Howerton (TVV)
Filing
74
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT 66 . Signed by Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen on 11/10/16. (Breen, J.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY C. WATSON,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 12-1131
TAMMY FORD,
Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
Before the Court is the October 17, 2016 pro se “Motion to Reconsider” filed by
Petitioner, Timothy C. Watson. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 66.)
Respondent, Tammy Ford, filed a
response opposing the motion on November 1, 2016, (D.E. 68), and Watson has filed a reply
(D.E. 73). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.
Watson, an inmate housed at Whiteville Correctional Facility (“WCF”), previously filed
a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“2254 Petition”) against
Ford, Warden of WCF, (D.E. 2), which this Court denied on September 12, 2016 (D.E. 64). In
his 2254 Petition, Watson attacked his state court conviction for two counts of selling .5 grams or
more of cocaine, raising six allegations of constitutional violations, including three claims of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel. (D.E. 2.) Additionally, he claimed that post-conviction
counsel had a conflict of interest, that the trial court improperly allowed him to proceed pro se
without conducting a competency evaluation, and that he was prejudiced by the lost transcript of
the hearing where he was questioned about his competency to proceed pro se. (Id.) After
review, this Court concluded that five of Watson’s claims were procedurally barred because he
had not presented them to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals and had not shown cause for
this failure. (D.E. 64 at PageID 1386.) With respect to the remaining claim—that his postconviction counsel had a conflict of interest—this Court also denied relief, noting that the issue
was supported only by conclusory allegations and without any evidence. (Id. at PageID 1378.)
Following that determination, Watson filed the instant “Motion to Reconsider” his 2254 Petition.
“Many pro se petitioners file inartfully drafted post-conviction motions, without
specifying the legal basis for the requested relief. District courts, in an effort to assist pro se
litigants unaware of the applicable statutory framework, often recharacterize such filings . . . .”
United States v. McDonald, 326 F. App’x 880, 882 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Shelton, 295
F.3d 620, 621 (6th Cir. 2002)). Watson’s motion is most properly considered as a Rule 59(e)
motion to alter or amend judgment. Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a
party to move to “alter or amend a judgment” within “28 days after entry.” The Rule’s purpose
“is to allow the district court to correct its own errors, sparing the parties and appellate courts the
burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings.” Howard v. United States, 533 F.3d 472, 475 (6th
Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if there is a
clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or to
prevent manifest injustice.” Besser v. Sepanak, 478 F. App’x 1001, 1001 (6th Cir. 2012).
Although not stated explicitly as such in his motion, the Court construes Petitioner’s
claim as one of newly discovered evidence. In his motion, Watson stated that he had attached
documents which showed that his post-conviction counsel, Charles Kelly, had a conflict of
interest “that grossly deprived [him] of his Due Process Rights” in state post-conviction
proceedings. (D.E. 66 at PageID 1390.) As mentioned above, Petitioner made this claim in his
2254 Petition but included no evidence to support it. As an exhibit to the instant motion, Watson
-2-
submitted a document filed by the attorney in state court. (D.E. 66-1.) That document is entitled
“Petition for Review” and was filed while Kelly was representing Watson’s trial attorney, Martin
Howie, in a matter before the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility (“TBPR”). (Id.)
This, Petitioner avers, proves that Kelly was simultaneously representing Howie and Watson
during the course of the latter’s post-conviction proceedings. (D.E. 66 at PageID 1390.) In his
reply, Watson suggests that this conflict of interest motivated Kelly’s decision not to call Howie
to testify at the post-conviction evidentiary hearing. (D.E. 73 at PageID 1439.)
However, although this document supports Watson’s contention that Kelly represented
Howie before the TBPR, he does not explain how that fact supports his motion or entitles him to
relief. The attorney represented Watson in his post-conviction proceedings in 2010, (D.E. 64 at
PageID 1369-71), but the “Petition for Review” in Howie’s case was not filed until May 27,
2011 (D.E. 66-1). Consequently, this evidence does not support Watson’s contention that there
was a conflict of interest at the time Kelly represented him.
Moreover, a claim that post-conviction counsel was ineffective is viable in a federal
habeas action in an extremely limited factual scenario. Prior to 2012, federal habeas petitioners
were barred from proving cause for procedural default with a claim of ineffective assistance of
post-conviction counsel.
See, e.g., Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731-32 (1991).
However, in that year, the United States Supreme Court adopted a narrow exception to this
prohibition. See Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012). In Martinez, the Court held that
“[i]nadequate assistance of counsel at initial-review collateral proceedings [could] establish
cause for a prisoner’s procedural default of a claim of ineffective assistance at trial.” Id. at 1315.
However, as discussed in this Court’s previous order, Martinez is inapplicable to the
instant case. Petitioner’s procedural default resulted from his filing an untimely pro se petition
-3-
for post-conviction relief. (See D.E. 64 at PageID 1386, n.12.) Kelly was not appointed until
after the procedural default occurred and thus was not the cause of it. Therefore, Watson’s
motion to alter or amend is not well-taken and is DENIED.11
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of November 2016.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
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?