Opinion
Civil Action No. 05-CV-6085.
December 6, 2005
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On November 21, 2005, petitioner filed a petition in this court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Pursuant to the language of Rule 60(b), such a petition may be treated as either a new civil action, or, a filing in an already opened civil action.
It appears to this court that petitioner does not comprehend what a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is. The purpose of a Rule 60(b) motion is to correct errors of fact only. The caption of Rule 60(b) provides that relief may be obtained under that rule only when there are "Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; (and/or), Fraud (in other words, factual arguments)." In the instant petition, petitioner is raising arguments concerning established federal LAW; he is not alleging any newly discovered FACTS which could not have been previously discovered through due diligence. The remedy provided by Rule 60(b) is clearly and solely reliant upon arguments based upon the facts of the specific individual case itself, and not to any legal claims. On this ground alone, the court feels compelled to disallow petitioner's Petition for Rule 60(b) relief.
In addition, such a petition may only be used to attack convictions when the petitioner is no longer `in custody' for purposes of the law of habeas corpus. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954); United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2000); United States v. Stoneman, 870 F.2d 102 (3d Cir. 1989). As petitioner currently remains incarcerated,Morgan, Baptiste and Stoneman argue persuasively and authoritatively for the denial of the instant Petition.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (commonly known as "AEDPA") is codified as 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241- 2266. The mere fact that habeas corpus relief is precluded by AEDPA does not mean that an alternative route to the same goal is available by means of a Petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Gonzalez v. Crosby, 125 S.Ct. 2641 (2005). The language of AEDPA sets forth extremely clear and extremely strict guidelines concerning the remedies obtainable through it; federal habeas corpus laws, and federal habeas corpus laws only, are available for relief from incarceration for prisoners who attempt to challenge the constitutionality or legality of their confinement, and "Rule 60(b) applies . . . only to the extent that it is not inconsistent with applicable federal statutes . . ." Gonzalez, 125 S.Ct. 2641 at 2643. This court is of the view that the use plaintiff attempts to make of Rule 60(b) is an attempt to get around the requirements of AEDPA, requirements which are so clear, so unambiguous, and so strict that they are absolutely unmistakable evidence of Congressional intent. As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted inBaptiste, if a petitioner could, by means of such a Rule 60(b) petition, get around Congress's clear intent in adopting AEDPA, the result would be "a complete miscarriage of justice."Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188 at 190. Accordingly, this day of, 2005, it is hereby
ORDERED that petitioner is granted provisional leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter for the purposes of this Order only, and, it is further
ORDERED that this civil action is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, and, it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania shall mark this matter as CLOSED in this court for all purposes, including statistics.