Cornelius v. Director TDCJ
Filing
71
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Petitioner's 62 Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 1/31/19. (ljw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
ANTHONY DEWAYNE CORNELIUS
§
VS.
§
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:14-CV-172
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner, Anthony Dewayne Cornelius, a prisoner confined at the Coffield Unit of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Procedural History
By way of Report and Recommendation on November 16, 2017, the Magistrate Judge, to
whom this case was referred, recommended this petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied(docket
entry no. 43). Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation on December 20, 2017
(docket entry no. 47). In light of the Objections, the Magistrate Judge entered a Supplemental Show
Cause Order on December 26, 2017 (docket entry no. 48). The Supplemental Response was filed
on March 5, 2018 (docket entry no. 54). A Memorandum Opinion and Order Overruling Petitioner’s
Objections and a Final Judgment were then entered on March 9, 2018 (docket entry nos. 56 & 57).
Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment on March 14, 2018 (docket entry no. 58), a
Notice of Appeal on March 29, 2018 (docket entry no. 60) and a Motion for Relief from Judgment
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) (docket entry no. 62). The Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals docketed the appeal on April 9, 2018.
On May 3, 2018, this Court denied petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, liberally construed as a
Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). In that motion,
petitioner challenged only this Court’s determination that petitioner’s claims relating to Cause No.
22029 were not exhausted and procedurally barred and, alternatively, lacked merit. In denying the
Rule 59(e) motion, this Court reiterated that petitioner had not exhausted these claims and that they
were procedurally barred.
On December 6, 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitioner a Certificate of
Appealability as to his appeal of this Court’s conclusion that his unexhausted § 2254 claims (related
to Cause No. 22029) were procedurally barred and that petitioner’s guilty plea was not rendered
involuntary by ineffective assistance of counsel.
Petitioner’s current Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b) reiterates the same arguments relating to Cause No. 22029.
Discussion
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets out five specific bases for granting
relief from a final judgment: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the
judgment is void; and (5) satisfaction, discharge, or release of the judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)
(1)-(5). In addition, Rule 60(b) provides that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment for
“any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6).
This “any other reason” clause is a “grand reservoir of equitable power” to do justice in a case when
relief is not warranted by the given enumerated grounds; relief will be granted only if “extraordinary
circumstances” are present. Batts v. Tow-Motor Forklift Co., 66 F.3d 743, 747 (5th Cir. 1995)
(citations omitted). To prevail on a motion to set aside judgment, a defendant must also show “good
cause.” Meaux Servs., Inc. v. Dao, 160 F.R.D. 563, 564 (E.D. Tex. 1995). Generally, Rule 60(b)
is not to be used as a substitute or alternative to appeal. Hill v. McDermott, Inc., 827 F.2d 1040,
1042 (5th Cir. 19897) (citations omitted). Such a motion must be made within one year after entry
of judgment for subsections (1), (2), and (3), and otherwise, within a reasonable time. FED. R. CIV.
P. 60(b).
The Supreme Court has cautioned that Rule 60(b)(6) should only be applied in extraordinary
circumstances. See Ames v. Miller, 184 F.Supp.2d 566, 575 (N.D. Tex. 2002) (citing Liljeberg v.
2
Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S., 847, 863 (1988); Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S.
193 (1950)). The court enjoys considerable discretion when determining whether the movant has
satisfied the Rule 60(b)(6) standard. See Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 1991).
Petitioner repeats the same arguments as presented in his Motion for Relief From Judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Notice of Appeal which have both been
denied. For the same reasons set forth in this Court’s prior order denying Petitioner’s Motion for
Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), Petitioner’s current 60(b)
Motion. It is, therefore,
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b) (docket entry no. 62) is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED January 31, 2019.
____________________________
Ron Clark, Senior District Judge
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?