Strouse v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 97

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/17/2016. Copy mailed to Petitioner. (walk, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division a I 8 20!6 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND VA JAMES STROUSE, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:12CV653 BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on March 4, petition for a writ of the Court dismissed without prejudice a habeas corpus under Strouse because 28 U.S.C. had failed Court received Federal Rule Motion," ECF No. on 1, July from of Civil 91.) 2016, 92, Strouse document QUESTION OF 93.) LAW TO Procedure Court denied On July 18, titled, THE "ON UNITED EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, James Strouse exhaust his On June 13, 2016, motion seeking relief under 68 - 6 9 . ) 60 (b) (6) ("Rule 60 (b) ( 6) the 2016, Rule Motion. the Court received from PETITION STATES 60 (b) (6) FOR CERTIFICATION DISTRICT COURT FOR RICHMOND DIVISION ECF N0.26, JUDICIAL NOTICE, GRANTED MARCH 4, OF FED.R.CIV.P." by By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered the (ECF Nos. a Strouse a filed properly to ( ECF Nos . administrative remedies. the 2241 ยง 2014, OF THE TAKE 2014 PURSUANT TO RULE 60(b) (4) ("Rule 60(b) (4) ," ECF Nos. 94, 95). A party seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b} must make a threshold showing of "'timeliness, a meritorious defense, party, a lack of unfair prejudice to the opposing and exceptional Fire & Cas. Auto. (quoting Werner v. After a Ins. Co., Carbo, party satisfies then must 60(b} ." circumstances.'" satisfy Id. one 993 of relief under Rule 60 (b} ( 4} , 48 207 six specific (4th Cir. 1993} 1984}}. [or she) of Rule Strouse seeks 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. "he sections 731 F.2d at 207}. hence, State Farm (4th Cir. threshold showing, the (citing Werner, Procedure 60 (c} (1) F.2d 46, 731 F.2d 204, this Dowell v. Fed. R. Civ. P. 2014 Memorandum 60 (c} (1) ( "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 60(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. (4th Cir. 1991} John W. 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 (citing Cent. F.2d 245 (4th Operating Co. v. Cir. Consol. 2 1974}; Utility Workers Masonry & Fireproofing, Inc. Cir. 1967))). v. Wagman Constr. Corp., 383 F.2d 249 {4th Moreover, Strouse's Rule 60(b) (4) Motion fails to articulate any coherent explanation as to how the Court erred in entering the Accordingly, March 4, 2014 Strouse's Rule Memorandum 60(b) (4) Opinion Motion and (ECF Nos. Order. 94, 95) will be denied. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Strouse and counsel for the United States. Date: &~~ (7,/ Richmond, Virginia }Jill> /s/ flV- Robert E. Payne Senior United States 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?