United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
July 13, 2015
DARNELL EDDINS, Petitioner,
LINDA METRISH, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
Denise Page Hood United States District Judge
Michigan state prisoner Darnell Eddins filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his imprisonment for a first-degree murder conviction. The Court summarily dismissed the petition with prejudice. See ECF No. 2. The Court denied Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. See ECF No. 4. Now before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment.
Petitioner seeks relief from judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4). Rule 60(b)(4) motions must be brought “within a reasonable time.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1). Determining whether a motion has been filed within a reasonable time “ordinarily depends on the facts of a given case including the length and circumstances of the delay, the prejudice to the opposing party by reason of the delay, and the circumstances compelling equitable relief.” Olle v. Henry & Wright, Corp., 910 F.2d 357, 365 (6th Cir. 1990). Petitioner’s motion was filed on April 27, 2015, eight years after the Court denied the petition. Petitioner provides no explanation for why he waited eight years to file his motion. He raises no arguments that would have been unavailable to him earlier. There are no circumstances compelling equitable relief in this case. Given these factors, the Court finds that Petitioner’s motion was not filed within a reasonable time. Accord General Medicine, P.C. v. Horizon/CMS Health Care Corp., 475 F. App’x 65, 76 (6th Cir. 2012) (finding four-year delay unreasonable); Blachy v. Butcher, 129 F. App’x 173, 179 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding a three-year delay did not satisfy Rule 60(b)’s “reasonable time” limitation).
Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 20) is DENIED.