United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 10)
HON.
LINDA V. PARKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before
the Court is petitioner Henry Lee Williams' Rule 60(b)
motion for relief from judgment, in which he asks the Court
to reopen his case and give him additional time to cure the
copy deficiency. For the reasons that follow, the motion is
DENIED without prejudice to petitioner
filing a new habeas petition.
On June
19, 2017, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued an
“Order to Correct Deficiency, ” to which
Petitioner was ordered to submit two copies of his petition
for writ of habeas corpus in order for the Clerk of the Court
to effect service upon the respondent and the Michigan
Attorney General's Office. Petitioner was given thirty
days to comply with the order.
On
October 11, 2017, this Court summarily dismissed the petition
without prejudice because petitioner failed to timely cure
the deficiency.
Petitioner
filed his motion for relief from judgment on December 28,
2018.[1] In his motion for relief from judgment,
Petitioner indicates that because of his limited education,
he was given a “jailhouse lawyer, ” i.e., a
fellow prisoner to assist him with his habeas petition. Based
on faulty advice from this prisoner, Petitioner only filed
one copy of the petition with this Court and attempted to
directly serve the Attorney General of the State of Michigan
with another copy. Petitioner claims that when he received
the order to correct the deficiency, the prisoner who had
been helping him with his petition was placed in segregation
for fighting. The prisoner had the only legible copy of the
petition for writ of habeas corpus in his possession.
Petitioner asked a sergeant at the prison to retrieve this
copy of the petition so that Petitioner could make copies.
The sergeant promised to do so, but then retired from
employment before obtaining the copy. In the meantime, the
prisoner who had been assisting petitioner was transferred to
another facility, along with the sole copy of the habeas
petition. Petitioner has continued to make attempts through
prison staff and fellow inmates to locate this prisoner and
attempt to retrieve his petition. Finally, Petitioner was
advised by a second prison paralegal to write this Court to
obtain a copy of the petition in order to make the required
copies. Petitioner claims he wrote this Court on November 26,
2018 and obtained a copy of the petition. Petitioner asks
this Court to reopen the petition and grant him additional
time to provide this Court with the requisite copies.
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
judgment should have prospective application; or,
(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of
the judgment.
“Regardless
of circumstances, no court can consider a motion brought
under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3) a year after
judgment.” In re G.A.D., Inc., 340 F.3d 331,
334 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), and
McDowell v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 931 F.2d 380,
384 (6th Cir. 1991)). Petitioner's current motion, in
which he argues reasons to excuse his failure to timely cure
the copy deficiency, is clearly based on subsection (1),
excusable neglect. See, e.g., Williams v.
Wolfenbarger, No. 07-CV-12333, 2008 WL 108864, at * 2
(E.D. Mich. Jan. 7, 2008).
This
Court summarily dismissed the petition for writ of habeas
corpus on October 11, 2017. Petitioner's motion for
relief from judgment was filed with this Court on December
28, 2018. Because Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion for
relief from judgment was filed more than one year after the
Court denied ...