McBride v. Johnson
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 5/28/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
JOHN DAVID MCBRIDE,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:08cv246
GENE M. JOHNSON,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on November 4,2008, this Court denied
Petitioner John David McBride's1 petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for failure to comply with the relevant statute of limitations.2 McBride v. Johnson, No.
3:08cv246, 2008 WL 4809857, at *4 (E.D. Va. Nov. 4, 2008). On April 18, 2012, McBride filed
a Motion to Vacate, asserting fraud. (ECF No. 76.) Construing the Motion to Vacate as filed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3),3 the Court dismissed the Motion to Vacate
as untimely. McBride v. Johnson, No. 3:08cv246, 2012 WL 3985577, at *l-2 (E.D. Va. Sept.
11,2012). On February 1,2013, McBride filed yet another Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(3) Motion ("Rule 60(b) Motion") alleging fraud based upon the state court's purported
refusal to provide McBride with documents. (Rule 60(b) Mot. 1.)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require Rule 60(b)(3) movants to file their motions
"no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding." Fed.
1McBride is a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se.
2See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
3"[T]he court may relieve aparty ... from a final judgment... for the following
reasons:... (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party
" Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). McBride challenges this Court's November 4,2008 Memorandum Opinion
and Order. Thus, as stated in the Court's previous Memorandum Opinion and Order, Rule
60(c)(1) required McBride to file any Rule 60(b)(3) motion by Thursday, November 5, 2009.
See McBride, 2012 WL 3985577, at *1. McBride filed the present Rule 60(b) Motion on
February 1, 2013. Accordingly, the Court will DENY McBride's Rule 60(b) Motion as
untimely.
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge
issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA will not issue
unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when "reasonable jurists could debate whether
(or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further."' Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)).
McBride fails to meet this standard. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will be DENIED.
An appropriate Order shall issue.
IsL
;V
M. Hannah Laj
United States Magistrate Judge
Richmond- Virginia
Date: r/^f/j?
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?