Opinion
Case No. 2:12-CV-538
05-14-2014
RONALD THOMAS, Petitioner, v. ERNIE MOORE, WARDEN, Respondent.
Judge Smith
Magistrate Judge King
OPINION AND ORDER
On July 1, 2013, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation without objection, Order, Doc. No. 19, and, on July 2, 2013, final judgment was entered dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Clerk's Judgment, Doc. No. 20. This matter now is before the Court on Petitioner's unopposed March 3, 2014, motion for relief from that judgment. Motion for Relief from Judgment, Doc. No. 22. In that motion, Petitioner asks that the Court consider his objections to the Report and Recommendation, Objection, Doc. No. 21, which were received after the adoption of the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment, Doc. No. 22, is GRANTED. The July 2, 2013, Clerk's Judgment dismissing this action without consideration of Petitioner's Objection, Doc. No. 20, is VACATED. However, Petitioner's objections, Objection, Doc. No. 21, are nevertheless OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No 13, is again ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.
Petitioner filed his motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve aRule 60(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that a court may grant relief under this rule only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances ,which are defined as those "unusual and extreme situations where principles of equity mandate relief." Export-Import Bank of U.S. v. Advanced Polymer Sciences, Inc., 604 F.3d 242, 247 (6th Cir. 2010). "[R]elief under Rule 60(b) is 'circumscribed by public policy favoring finality of judgments and termination of litigation.'" Id. (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Mustangs Unlimited, Inc., 487 F.3d 465, 468 (6th Cir. 2007)).
party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
***
(6) any [] reason that justifies relief.
Petitioner indicates that he files his Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b); however, Rule 60(b)(6) is the only provision of that rule that applies to Petitioner's argument.
A motion under Rule 60(b)(6) must be made within a "reasonable time." Rule 60(c)(1). "A reasonable time depends on the factual circumstances of each case. . . and a moving party must articulate a reasonable basis for the delay[.]" Tyler v. Anderson, -- F.3d --, 2014 WL 1465040, at *10 (6th Cir. April 15, 2014). Here, Petitioner filed his Motion for Relief from Judgment on March 3, 2014, approximately eight months after final judgment was entered. Petitioner represents that he did not learn that the District Court would not consider his Objection to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation of dismissal of this case until many months had passed. Motion for Relief from Judgment, PAGEID # 1407. He also contends that the Clerk failed to notify him of the entry of final judgment. Id. at PAGEID # 1406. Under these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the Motion for Relief from Judgment was filed within a "reasonable time."
After the Report and Recommendation was filed, the Court granted Petitioner's request for an extension of time - until June 21, 2013 - to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. Order, Doc. No. 16. On July 2, 2013, the same day that the Clerk's Judgment was filed, Petitioner's Objection was also filed. However, Petitioner represents that his objections were submitted to prison officials for filing on June 10, 2013. Objection, PAGEID # 1403.
Because Petitioner submitted his Objection to prison officials for mailing prior to the date that his objections were required to be filed, his objections were timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-71 (1988)(a pro se prisoner's filings are deemed filed on the date of delivery to prison officials for mailing). The Court therefore GRANTS Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment, Doc. No. 22.
The Clerk's Judgment, Doc. No. 20, is hereby VACATED.
The Court will now consider, de novo, the Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 13, and Petitioner's objections to that Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
This case involves Petitioner's convictions, after a jury trial in the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, on charges of aggravated robbery and robbery with firearm specifications, and having a weapon while under a disability. Petitioner claims in this habeas corpus action that the trial court deprived him of the right to present a defense and that prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial. The Magistrate Judge recommended that both claims be dismissed on the merits. Report and Recommendation.
Petitioner objects to that recommendation, arguing - as he did before the Magistrate Judge - that the trial court should have permitted him to call certain jail personnel as defense witnesses. Petitioner contends that their testimony would have corroborated the testimony of a State's witness, Alexa Morris, who acknowledged that she wrote to Joshua Cooey, her boyfriend and a co-defendant, while she was incarcerated and contrary to the trial court's directives. Petitioner argues that the testimony of jail personnel was critical to his defense because he intended to establish that Morris, in an effort to protect her boyfriend, planned to blame Petitioner for the charged offenses. See Exhibit 10 to Return of Writ, PAGEID # 82.
The testimony proffered by Petitioner would have merely corroborated Morris' own testimony, in which she admitted that she contacted her boyfriend, contrary to the restrictions of the trial court, using the name of another inmate. As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner's defense counsel was permitted ample opportunity to cross-examine Morris regarding these events and her motive and possible bias against Petitioner. Report and Recommendation, PAGEID # 1382-83. Petitioner cannot establish that he was prejudiced by the trial court's ruling in this regard.
Petitioner also complains that the trial court erred to his prejudice when it refused to permit him to call a witness who would have controverted the State's testimony that the phrase "to hit a lick" referred to robbery. The Report and Recommendation relied on the reasoning of the state appellate court in rejecting this claim. Id. at PAGEID # 1383. This Court likewise concludes that Petitioner cannot establish prejudice resulting from the trial court's decision in this regard.
Finally, Petitioner claims that prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument denied him a fair trial. The Magistrate Judge adopted the reasoning of the state appellate court in concluding that Petitioner invited any alleged error in this regard. Report and Recommendation, PAGEID # 1383-85. This Court agrees and Petitioner's objection to this recommendation is OVERRULED. The record simply fails to reflect the denial of fundamental fairness so as to warrant federal habeas corpus relief on this claim.
WHEREUPON Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment, Doc. No. 22, is GRANTED. The July 2, 2013, Clerk's Judgment, Doc. No. 20, is VACATED. However, Petitioner's Objection, Doc. No. 21, to the Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 13, is OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a new FINAL JUDGMENT.
__________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT