Johnson v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 2/8/2017. Copy mailed to Pro Se Petitioner. (jsmi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
COREY E. JOHNSON,
Civil Action No. 3:07CV731
LORETTA K. KELLY,
Corey E. Johnson, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition"). Johnson challenged his convictions in the Circuit Court
for the City ofRichmond oftwo counts of murder and two counts ofuse of a firearm inthe
commission of those offenses. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on August 28,
2008, this Court found that Johnson procedurally defaulted his claims and denied the § 2254
Petition. See Johnson v. Kelly, No. 3:07CV731, 2008 WL 3992638, at *1-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 28,
2008). Thereafter, Johnson submitted a series of unsuccessftil motions for relief under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). On January 19, 2017, the Court received from Johnson another
Rule 60(b) Motion (ECF No. 86).
Aparty seeking relief under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 60(b) must make a threshold
showing of"timeliness, a meritorious defense, a lack ofunfair prejudice to the opposing party,
and exceptional circumstances." Dowell v. State Farm Fire &Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46,
48 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting Werner v. Carbo, 731 F.2d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 1984)). After a party
satisfies this threshold showing, "he [orshe] then must satisfy one of the six specific sections of
Rule 60(b)." Id. (citing Werner, 731 F.2d at 207). Johnson seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(4),
hence, under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 60(c)(1) he was required to file his motion within a
reasonable time after the entry of the August 28, 2008 Memorandum Opinion and Order. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(c)(l)( "A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time-and for
reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date
of the proceeding.") Johnson's Rule 60(b) Motion, filed more than eight (8) years after the entry
of the challenged judgment, was not filed in a reasonable time. See McLawhorn v. John W.
Daniel & Co., Inc., 924 F.2d 535, 538 (4th Cir. 1991) ("We have held on several occasions that a
Rule 60(b) motion is not timely brought when it is made three to four months after the original
judgment and no valid reason is given for the delay." (citing Cent. Operating Co. v. Utility
Workers ofAm., 491 F.2d 245 (4th Cir. 1974); Consol. Masonry & Fireproofing, Inc. v. Wagman
Constr. Corp., 383 F.2d 249 (4th Cir. 1967))). Accordingly, the Rule 60(b) Motion (ECF
No. 86) will be DENIED. The Court will DENY a certificate of appealability.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
United States DistridJiMge
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?