Opinion
Civil Action 99-1793
05-01-2024
HUBERT JACKSON, Petitioner, v. WARDEN DONALD T. VAUGHN, et al., Respondents.
Re: ECF No. 42
MAUREEN P. KELLY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOY FLOWERS CONTI, DISTRICT JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiffs Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(b)(4) (the “Motion”), ECF No. 42, be denied, and that a certificate of appealability be denied.
II. REPORT
A. Relevant Background
Petitioner Hubert Jackson (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner who is incarcerated at the State Correctional Institute at Somerset (“SCI-Somersef ') in Somerset, Pennsylvania. This case was transferred to this judicial district from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on October 29, 1999. Petitioner was denied federal habeas relief on December 9, 1999. ECF No. 13.
Since having been denied relief in 1999, Petitioner has moved for relief from judgment at least five times prior to filing the instant Motion. ECF Nos. 15, 23, 29, 32, and 40. Each of those motions was denied. ECF Nos. 17, 24, 30, 33, and 41. On September 24, 2014, Judge Conti entered an order that repetitious Rule 60(b) motions would be summarily denied. ECF No. 30. At least two of Petitioner's Rule 60 motions have been summarily denied pursuant to this Order. ECF Nos. 33 and 41. Petitioner has appealed three times to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and has been unsuccessful each time. ECF Nos. 22, 27, and 39.
The current Rule 60 Motion, ECF No. 42, suffers from the same defects of Petitioner's prior Motions, and should be denied.
B. Legal Analysis
1. Relief under Rule 60 should be summarily denied.
To the extent that Petitioner's Motion is a true Rule 60(b) motion, see Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005) (explaining the difference between a Rule 60 motion and a second or successive habeas petition) the Motion should be denied pursuant to Judge Conti's Order dated September 24, 2014. ECF No. 30.
2. The Motion is untimely.
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to relieve a litigant from judgment based on certain, enumerated reasons. The reasons relevant to this Report and Recommendation are:
(4) the judgment is void; [and];
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) and (6).
All motions filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) must be made within a “reasonable time.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1). See also Cox v. Hom, 757 F.3d 113, 115-16 (3d Cir. 2014) (recognizing the “reasonable time” standard to motions filed under Rule 60(b)(6)).
Petitioner was denied federal habeas relief almost 25 years ago. ECF No. 11. He has filed multiple Rule 60 motions between 2012 and now - the latest prior motion having been filed on September 6, 2017. ECF Nos. 15, 23, 29, 32, and 40.
Given the procedural history of this case - including Petitioner's many prior Rule 60 motions and appeals - and the arguments raised in the Motion itself, Petitioner has not established that he filed the present Motion within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, it should be denied for this additional reason.
3. Petitioner has not demonstrated entitlement to relief under Rule 60(b)(4).
Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to relieve a party from a final judgment if the judgment is void.” United Student Aid Funds, Inc, v, Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270 (2010) (cleaned up). The list of infirmities rendering a judgment void “is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60(b)(4)'s exception to finality would swallow the rule.” Id. A Rule 60(b)(4) motion is not a substitute for a timely appeal and a judgment is not void “simply because it is or may have been erroneous.” Id. at 271. “Instead, Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.” Id.
Simply put, Petitioner has not demonstrated that this Court's denial of habeas relief was done without jurisdiction, or somehow denied him notice of an opportunity to be heard. To the contrary, Petitioner concedes that this Court had jurisdiction to hear his case. ECF No. 42 at 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). The Motion should be denied for this additional reason.
4. Petitioner has not demonstrated entitlement to relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
“Rule 60(b)(6)... permits reopening when the movant shows ‘any ... reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment' other than the more specific circumstances set out in Rules 60(b)(1)-(5).” Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 528-29, citing Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863, n.l 1 (1988); Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 613 (1949). A “movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) [must] show ‘extraordinary circumstances' justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 535. The movant bears a heavy burden of proof that extraordinary circumstances are present. Bohus v, Beloff, 950 F.2d 919, 930 (3d Cir. 1991).
Here, Petitioner has not met his burden to show entitlement to relief. As discussed above, the Motion was not filed within a reasonable period of time, and there is nothing in the Motion to support extraordinary circumstances justifying the relief he seeks. Therefore, the Motion should be denied for this additional reason.
5. Substantive habeas relief should be denied.
To the extent that Petitioner's Motion includes a substantive claim for federal habeas relief, the same should be denied for jack of jurisdiction as a second or successive habeas petition filed without prior authorization from the United States Court of Appeals. Pridgen v, Shannon, 380 F.3d 721, 727 (3d Cir. 2004); Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 530-32; 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
6. Certificate of appealability
To the extent that one is required, a certificate of appealability should be denied because jurists of reason would not debate whether Petitioner had failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief under Rule 60, or that this Court lacked jurisdiction over any second or successive habeas claim presented without prior authorization from the Court of Appeals. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully recommended that the instant Motion, ECF No. 42, be denied, and that a certificate of appealability be denied.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011).