Strouse v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 92

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 06/30/2016. Copy mailed to Petitioner. (walk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

JUL • I 20l6

JAMES STROUSE,

CLERK; U.S. DISTRICT COURI'
RICHMOND VA

Petitioner,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:12CV653

BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on March 4,

2014,

the Court dismissed without prejudice a petition for a writ of
habeas

corpus

because

under

Strouse

28

U. s. c.

had

§

failed

2241
to

(ECF Nos.

administrative remedies.

filed

the Court received from Strouse a

by

properly

James

Strouse
his

On June 13,

68-69.)

exhaust

2016,

motion seeking relief under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (b) (6)

("Rule 60 (b)

Motion,

11

ECF No. 91.)
A

party

seeking

relief

under

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure 60(b) must make a threshold showing of "'timeliness, a
meritorious defense,
party,
Fire

and exceptional
&

Cas.

Auto.

(quoting Werner v.
After a
then

a lack of unfair prejudice to the opposing

Ins.

satisfy

Co.,

Carbo,

party satisfies

must

circumstances.'

one

993

11

F.2d 46,

731 F.2d 204,
this

of

the

Dowell v.
48

207

(4th Cir.
(4th Cir.

threshold showing,
six

specific

State Farm

"he

sections

1993)

1984)).
[or she)
of

Rule

60(b)."

Id.

(citing Werner,

relief under Rule 60{b) (6),
Procedure 60 (c} (1)

Strouse seeks

731 F.2d at 207).
hence,

under Federal Rule of Civil

he was required to file his motion within a

reasonable time after the entry of the March 4,
Opinion and Order.

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

60 (c) (1) (

2014 Memorandum
"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

judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.")

the

Strouse's

Rule GO(b) Motion, filed more than two (2) years after the entry
of the challenged judgment, was not filed in a reasonable time.
See McLawhorn v. John W.
(4th Cir. 1991)

Daniel & Co.,

Inc.,

924 F.2d 535,

538

("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."
of

Am.,

491

Fireproofing,

(citing Cent.

F.2d
Inc.

Cir. 1967))).

245
v.

(4th

Operating Co.

v.

Cir.

Consol.

1974};

Wagman Constr.

Strouse's Rule 60(b)

Corp.,

383

Utility Workers
Masonry

F.2d 249

Motion (ECF No.

91)

&

(4th

will be

denied.
The

Clerk is

directed to send a

copy of

this Memorandum

Opinion to Strouse and counsel for the United States.

QJ'u{ :ko,

Date:
»(ft'
Richmol/d, Virginia

/s/
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
2