United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
JOHN A. GIBNEY, Jr., District Judge.
The matter is before the Court on another motion seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion (ECF No. 190) will be DENIED.
I. Procedural History
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on July 2, 1999, the Court denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion from Michael Jackson. Thereafter, on July 20, 1999, the Court denied a motion for reconsideration from Jackson. On June 7, 2013, the Court received a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from Jackson (hereinafter, "Rule 60(b) Motion, " ECF No. 175.) Jackson sought relief under Rule 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6). (Rule 60(b) Mot. 6.) In his Rule 60(b) Motion, Jackson noted that the Court rejected some of Jackson's ineffecive assistance of counsel claims as "blad assertiosn of misconduct supported by no evidence." ( Id. at 5.) Jackson asserted that the Court erred because if failed to give Jackson an opprotunity to amend such claims or "to submit the documents that supported his claims." ( Id. at 10.)
A part seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) must make a threshold showing of "timeliness, a meritorious defense, a lack of unfair prejudice to the opposing party, ] and exceptional circumstances'" Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting Werner v. Carbo, 731 F.2d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 1984)). After a party satisfied this threshold showing, "he [or she] then must satisfy one of the six specific sections of Rule 60(b)." Id. (citing Werner, 731 F.2d at 207).
"A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time - and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1). By Memorandum Opinion and Final Order entered on October 11, 2013, the Court denied Jackson's Rule 60(b) Motion, finding:
Jackson's request for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) is clearly outside the one year limitation for such motion. Additionally, Jacckson's request for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), filed over a decade after the 1999 judgment, was not file within a reasonable time. McLawhorn v. John W. Daniel & Co., Inc., 924 F.2d 535, 538 (4th Cir. 1991) ("We have held on several occasions that a Rule 60(b) motion is not timely brought when it is made three to four months after the original judgment and no valid reason is given for the delay." (citing Cent. Operating Co. v. Utility Workers of Am., 491 F.2d 245 (4th Cir. 1974); Consol. Masonry & Fireproofing. Inc. v. Wagman Constr. Corp., 383 F.2d 249 (4th Cir. 1967))).
(ECF No. 177, at 2.) The Court also denied Jackson a certificate of appealability. ( Id. at 3.)
Jackson appealed. On July 29, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Jackson certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. United States v. Jackson, No. 14-6511, at 3 (4th Cir. July 29, 2014). Jackson's request for a certificate of appealability with respect to this dismissed appeal (ECF No. 186) will be DENIED AS MOOT.
II. Jackson's Present Rule 60(b)(4) Motion
On October 23, 2014, Jackson filed the present motion seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) ("Rule 60(b)(4) Motion"). That rule permits the Court to grant relief from a judgment on the ground that "the judgment is void." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4). In support of his Rule 60(b)(4) Motion, Jackson challenges the dismissal of his § 2255 Motion on grounds nearly identical to that raised in his prior Rule 60(b) Motion. The Rule 60(b)(4) Motion, like the prior Rule 60(b) Motion, is untimely. McLawhorn v. John W. Daniel & Co., Inc., 924 F.2d 535 538 (4th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). Accordingly, the Rule 60(b)(4) Motion (ECF No. 190) will be DENIED.
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A COA will not issue unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 ...