Opinion
CRIMINAL NO. 79-61
11-19-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MILTON DEJESUS-BONES
MEMORANDUM
Presently before me is a pro se motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion filed by Milton DeJesus-Bones. DeJesus-Bones, who is currently incarcerated at the Allenwood Federal Correctional Institution in White Deer, Pennsylvania, seeks relief from judgment by challenging the "correctness of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255" motion. For the reasons that follow, DeJesus-Bones' motion will be denied.
In previous filings, Petitioner has filed under the name "Milton DeJesus Bones;" however, in the instant motion he has captioned his motion and signature line with the name "Milton DeJesus-Bones." As a result, I will refer to Petitioner as "DeJesus-Bones" in the instant matter rather than "Bones."
It plainly appears from the petition that DeJesus-Bones fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As a result, I did not order an answer from Respondents as it would have unnecessarily delayed the judicial process. Accordingly, the facts and procedural history recited herein are derived exclusively from DeJesus-Bones' Rule 60(b) motion and the docket.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Forty-four years ago, in 1979, DeJesus-Bones pled guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute a controlled substance as well as unlawful carrying of a firearm during the commission of a felony. According to the docket, over the next forty-two years, DeJesus- Bones did not challenge his conviction or sentence. In the past two years, however, DeJesus-Bones has filed two pro se petitions for a writ of coram nobis arguing that he suffers "continuing consequences" from his allegedly constitutionally invalid conviction. I denied both petitions as meritless.
Consideration of DeJesus-Bones' claims has been impeded by the age of his conviction, the current unavailability of his archived file, and the fact that his case has been preserved on a paper rather than electronic docket.
--------
In the instant Rule 60(b) motion, DeJesus-Bones asserts that the denial of his § 2255 motion should be vacated because: (1) his motion was not afforded "liberal construction" and (2) he was not given an evidentiary hearing.
DISCUSSION:
DeJesus-Bones is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). In the absence of a more specific claim, I construe DeJesus-Bones' motion as one brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), a catch-all provision that allows a district court to vacate a prior judgment for "any other reason that justifies relief." To bring a motion within the "other reason" language of Rule 60(b)(6), a petitioner must allege "extraordinary circumstances" suggesting that the petitioner is faultless in any delayed filing. Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993).
DeJesus-Bones has not provided any information concerning the date his § 2255 motion was filed or the claims presented in the motion. The court's paper docket does not show that a § 2255 motion was ever filed in this case. Moreover, a circuit-wide electronic docket search was unavailing. As a result, his Rule 60(b) motion must be dismissed because there is no "prior judgment" to vacate.
If DeJesus-Bones is characterizing one of his previously filed petitions for coram nobis as a § 2255 motion, this argument is also meritless. Rather than setting forth any specific constitutional claims which would provide a basis for relief, DeJesus-Bones generally refers to my failure to afford his claims "liberal construction" and to grant him an evidentiary hearing. Such vague claims do not provide the basis for re-opening a prior judgment. In any event, he has also failed to set forth any evidence of extraordinary circumstances which would justify revisiting his conviction or sentence. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S., 524, 535 (2005) (extraordinary circumstances justifying 60(b) relief are rarely established in the habeas context). As a result, his motion is denied.
An appropriate order follows.