Wiggins v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by Senior United States District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 10/21/2019. (sbea, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
EDWARD L. WIGGINS,
Plaintiff,
V.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
JOHNSON,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 3:17CV840-HEH
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Denying Rule 60(b) Motion)
Edward L. Wiggins, a Virginia inmate proceeding prose and informa pauperis,
submitted this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By Memorandum Opinion and
Order entered on August 20, 2018, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice because
Wiggins fail[ed] to allege facts indicating that Officer Johnson's actions violated his
constitutional rights. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) On March 18, 2019, the United States Court of
Appeals affirmed this Court's dismissal of the action with prejudice. (ECF Nos. 18, 19.)
On June 5, 2019, Wiggins submitted a document entitled, "1983 Civil Rights Action To
be Reheard Plaintiff Brief Preliminary Statement To Proceed." (ECF No. 24.) In the
body of the submission, Wiggins states that he seeks relief under "§ 1983" and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) ("Rule 60(b) Motion"). 1
1
The Court cannot read the letters or numbers contained in the parentheses after "Rule 60(b)."
(Id. at 1.) However, as discussed later, it is ultimately ofno import what Wiggins writes because
he is not truly seeking reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of the action.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a court to "relieve a party ... from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). It is an extraordinary
remedy requiring a showing of exceptional circumstances. Mayfield v. Nat 'l Ass 'n for
Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing Ackermann v.
United States, 340 U.S. 193,202 (1950)). The party seeking relief under Rule 60(b)
"must make a threshold showing of timeliness, 'a meritorious claim or defense,' and lack
of unfair prejudice to the opposing party .... " Coleman v. Jabe, 633 F. App'x 119, 120
(4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496,501 (4th Cir. 2011)). A party
must also demonstrate "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 [or she] then
must satisfy one of the six specific sections of Rule 60(b)." Id. (quoting Werner, 731
F.2d at 207).
Although Wiggins identifies his action as brought pursuant to Rule 60(b) in one
sentence on the first page, he truly fails to seek reconsideration of the Court's dismissal
of this action. Rather, Wiggins simply presents his claims against Defendant Johnson as
if this were a new civil action, not an action that the Court already dismissed. Wiggins
fails to identify any ground upon which the Court could grant Rule 60(b) relief.
Accordingly, Wiggins's Rule 60(b) will be denied. 2
2
Even if Wiggins had asserted a ground for Rule 60(b) relief, his motion would nevertheless be
untimely. Wiggins was required to file his motion within a reasonable time after the entry of the
August 20, 2018 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
2
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Isl
Date: fk.-t. 2.,, 2011
Richmond, Virginia
HENRY E. HUDSON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding."). Wiggins' s
Rule 60(b)(6) Motion, filed more than nine months 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. Util. Workers ofAm., 491 F.2d 245 (4th Cir.
1974); Consol. Masonry & Fireproofing, Inc. v. Wagman Constr. Corp., 383 F.2d 249 (4th Cir.
1967))).
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?