Opinion
9:06-CV-1436 (NAM) (DRH).
June 7, 2007
KEITH WIGGINS, 02-R-3996, Orleans Correctional Facility, Albion, NY, Petitioner, Pro Se.
ORDER
Petitioner Keith Wiggins ("petitioner" or "Wiggins") has filed a motion for relief from judgment and an appeal from a magistrate judge's order. Dkt. Nos. 17-18.
This was docketed as a motion for reconsideration.
I. BACKGROUND
II. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
60
Rule 60(b) sets forth the following six grounds upon which relief from judgment can be granted:
(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.
In deciding a Rule 60(b) motion, "a court must balance the policy in favor of hearing a litigant's claims on the merits against the policy in favor of finality." Kotlicky v. United States Fidelity Guar. Co., 817 F. 2d 6, 9 (2d Cir. 1987). Moreover, Rule 60(b) motions are left to the sound discretion of the district judge. See Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(b).
The Court finds that Wiggins has not established any of the above factors in his motion. Additionally, Wiggins has included nothing in his present submissions to suggest that the dismissal of this action was in any way erroneous. Since Wiggins sets forth no credible basis for vacating the judgement dated April 19, 2007, his motion must be denied.
III. APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER.
Also before the Court is petitioner's objections to Magistrate Judge Homer's rejection order dated April 16, 2007. Dkt. No. 15. That order rejected petitioner's March 28, 2007, motion to expand the record because the case was closed on February 6, 2007. The rejection order also advised petitioner that "[i]f your action is remanded to this Court once your appeal has been decided, you may resubmit your motion." Id.
The Motion was signed by petitioner on March 28, 2007, and filed with the Court on or about April 17, 2007.
Petitioner alleges that the motion to expand the record was directed at the request for a certificate of appealability, and that he was seeking to add documents in support of that motion. Dkt. No. 18. However, Rule 7(a) governing the expansion of the record in habeas proceedings provides that " [i]f the petition is not dismissed , the judge may direct the parties to expand the record by submitting additional materials relating to the petition. " Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Proceedings (emphasis supplied). In light of the fact that the petition had been dismissed, and that dismissal was on appeal at the time petitioner's motion to expand the record was rejected, the rejection of the motion to expand the record was proper.
In addition, in light of petitioner's pro se status, and in light of the motion to vacate this Court's order denying petitioner a certificate of appealability as discussed above, the Court has reviewed the rejected motion and its attachments. Upon such review, the Court finds that these documents would have had no impact on this Court's decision to deny petitioner a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, petitioner's appeal from the Magistrate's Rejection Order must be denied. WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that petitioner's motion to vacate judgment (Dkt. No. 17) is DENIED, and it is further
ORDERED that petitioner's appeal from the Magistrate's decision (Dkt. No. 18) is DENIED, and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on the petitioner by regular mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.