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, )

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

§

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