United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
A. Gibney, Jr. United States District Judge
Edward Butler, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro
se, filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
("§ 2254 Petition"). See Butler v.
Young, No. 3:02CV56, 2002 WL 32925758, at *1 (E.D. Va.
July 16, 2002). By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on
July 16, 2002, the Court denied Butler's § 2254
Petition because it was barred by the applicable one-year
statute of limitations. Id. at 2.
February 14, 2018, the Court received from Butler "A
Motion under Rule 60(b)" seeking relief under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) ("Rule 60(b) Motion,
" ECF No. I). In his Rule 60(b) Motion, Butler requests
that the Court vacate the dismissal of his § 2254
Petition due to extraordinary circumstances. (See
Id. at 1, 4.)
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
satisfies 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).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1), Butler was required
to file his motion within a reasonable time after the entry
of the July 16, 2002 Memorandum Opinion and Order.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1) ("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."). Butler's
Rule 60(b) Motion, filed over fifteen years after the entry
of the challenged judgment, was not filed in a reasonable
time. See 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))). Moreover,
"[a] motion under [Rule] 60(b)(6) may not be granted
absent 'extraordinary circumstances.'" MLC
Auto., LLC v. Town of Southern Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277
n.5 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Reid v. Angelone, 369
F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir. 2004)).
of arguing why his Rule 60(b) Motion should be considered
timely, Butler essentially argues that he is entitled to an
evidentiary hearing to determine whether this Court properly
denied his § 2254 Petition as untimely. (See
Rule 60(b) Mot. 2, 5-7.) Thus, Butler fails to offer
any persuasive argument as to why this Court should find that
his Rule 60(b)(6) was filed within a reasonable time. Cf.
Fortune v. Clarke, 712 Fed.Appx. 296, 297 (4th Cir.
2018) (explaining that determination of timeliness of a Rule
60(b) motion is discretionary, not jurisdictional). Butler
also fails to demonstrate any such extraordinary
circumstances that would wan-ant vacating the prior dismissal
of his § 2254 Petition. Accordingly, Butler's Rule
60(b) Motion (ECF No. 1) will be DENIED. A certificate of
appealability will be DENIED.
appropriate Order shall issue.
 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
provides, in pertinent part:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment,
Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the
court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).
The Court employs the pagination
assigned by the CM/ECF docketing system to Butler's Rule