Shepherd v. Director TDCJ

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The motions for relief from judgment 44 and 46 are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Thad Heartfield on 7/14/22. (ljw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
RODNEY SHEPHERD

§

VS.

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:18cv9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The court previously entered a Final Judgment dismissing this petition for writ of habeas
corpus. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied petitioner’s request for a
certificate of appealability. Currently pending before the court are two motions for relief from
judgment filed by petitioner.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that:
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; (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 of any 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.
Petitioner’s motions do not rely on any of the reasons for relief from judgment set forth in
Rule 60(b).1 Moreover, the court remains of the opinion this petition was properly dismissed. As
a result, petitioner has not shown he is entitled to relief from judgment. It is therefore
ORDERED that the motions for relief from judgment (doc. nos. 44 and 46) are DENIED.
SIGNED this the 14 day of July, 2022.

____________________________
Thad Heartfield
United States District Judge
1

In his motions, petitioner makes reference to this matter being erroneously closed and then reinstated.
However, the docket sheet does not indicate that this case was ever closed and then reinstated.