Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carroll v. Burt

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

October 28, 2016

MICHAEL CARROLL, Petitioner,
v.
S.L. BURT, Respondent,

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING THE RULE 60(B) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY OR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court are petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment and his related motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motions are DENIED.

         I. Background

         Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed with prejudice on the ground that the petition was filed outside of the one year statute of limitations for habeas petitions contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner was granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether petitioner had made a significant showing of actual innocence to excuse the untimely filing of his habeas petition. See Carroll v. Burt, No. 2:07-CV-12679; 2010 WL 2649895 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2010). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court's dismissal of the habeas petition, finding that petitioner had made an insufficient showing of actual innocence so as to toll the limitations period. Carroll v. Burt, 443 F. App'x. 991 (6th Cir. 2011).

         Petitioner subsequently filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, arguing that this Court erred in failing to address the merits of his claim involving an alleged violation of Article IV (c) of the Interstate Detainers Act (IAD), because this violation deprived the State of Michigan of subject matter jurisdiction over his criminal case. Petitioner claimed that because the violation of the IAD deprived the state of jurisdiction over his case, the one year limitations period contained in 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(d)(1) did not bar consideration of this claim. This Court denied the Rule 60(b) motion, concluding that the limitations period contained in § 2244(d) applied to petitioner's conviction even if there was a jurisdictional defect. Carroll v. Burt, No. 2:07-CV-12679; 2013 WL 440167 (E.D. Mich. February 5, 2013). The Court also denied petitioner a certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Id. The Court again denied petitioner a certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis on March 6, 2013. The United States Court of Appeals subsequently denied petitioner a certificate of appealability, concluding that petitioner's conviction did not suffer any jurisdictional defects, in that a violation of the IAD does not deprive a court of jurisdiction. Carroll v. Burt, No. 13-1240 (6th Cir. August 14, 2013).

         Petitioner subsequently filed a second motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), arguing again that the State of Michigan lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his case, because the prosecutor violated Article IV (c) of the Interstate Detainers Act (IAD) by failing to bring him to trial within 120 days of his arrival in the State of Michigan. The motion was denied. Carroll v. Burt, No. CIV. 2:07-12679, 2014 WL 2993745 (E.D. Mich. July 3, 2014).

         Petitioner has once again filed a motion for relief from judgment and a motion for summary judgment, in which he again argues that because the prosecutor violated the provisions of the IAD, this Court erred in summarily dismissing the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(d)(1).

         II. Discussion

         Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), a motion for relief from judgment can be granted for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.