United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
A. Gibney, Jr., United States District Judge
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on July 2, 1999, the
Court denied Elan Christopher Lewis's motion to vacate,
set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 ("§ 2255 Motion"). See United
States v. Lewis, No. 3:94CR94, 2013 WL 12218808, at *1
(E.D. Va. June 26, 2013). Since that date, Lewis has
continued to file challenges to his conviction and sentence.
On February 15, 2018, Lewis submitted a "MOTION TO
RE-OPEN AND/OR RECONSIDER," wherein he requests that the
Court reconsider its denial of his § 2255 Motion under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) ("Rule 60(b)
Motion," ECF No. 264.). On June 29, 2018, Lewis filed a
Motion to Withdraw the Rule 60(b) Motion. (ECF No. 266.) On
June 5, 2018, the Court received yet another "MOTION TO
RE-OPEN AND/OR RECONSIDER," that is also a Rule 60(b)
motion. ("Second Rule 60(b) Motion," ECF No. 266).
For the reasons stated below, Lewis's Motion to Withdraw
the Rule 60(b) Motion will be denied, and both the Rule 60(b)
Motion and the Second Rule 60(b) Motion will be denied as
Rule 60(b) Motion and Second Rule 60(b) Motion, Lewis
requests that the Court vacate the denial of his § 2255
Motion due to extraordinary circumstances. (Rule 60(b) Mot.
1; Sec. Rule 60(b) Mot. 1 .) A party 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), Lewis was required
to file his motion within a reasonable time after the entry
of the July 2, 1999 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."). Lewis's
Rule 60(b) Motion and his Second Rule 60(b) Motion, filed
over eighteen years after the entry of the challenged
judgment, were 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 &
Fireproofmg, Inc. v. WagmanConstr. 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 Reidv. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th
of arguing why his Rule 60(b) Motion and Second Rule 60(b)
Motion should be considered timely, Lewis essentially argues
that the Court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing
before denying his § 2255 Motion. (See Rule
60(b) Mot. 4-11; Sec. Rule 60(b) Mot. 4-7.) Thus, Lewis fails
to offer any persuasive argument as to why this Court should
find that his Rule 60(b) Motion or Second Rule 60(b) Motion
were 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). Lewis also
fails to demonstrate any such extraordinary circumstances
that would warrant vacating the prior dismissal of his §
2255 Motion. Accordingly, Lewis's Rule 60(b) Motion
(ECF No. 264) and Second Rule 60(b) Motion (ECF No. 267) will
be DENIED. Lewis's Motion to Withdraw the Rule 60(b)
Motion (ECF No. 266) 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 Lewis's
 From what the Court can discern, Lewis
argues in his Rule 60(b) Motion that extraordinary
circumstances exist because his § 2255 Motion should not
have been denied without an evidentiary hearing to determine
credibility issues between his former counsel and himself
over his habeas claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
(Rule 60(b) Mot. 4-11.) Lewis simply fails to demonstrate
extraordinary circumstances that warrant vacating the
Court's denial of his § 2255 Motion. Moreover, the
Fourth Circuit instructs that even if extraordinary
circumstances exist, a movant must still meet Rule
60(b)'s requirement of timeliness. See Moses v.
Joyner,815 F.3d 163, 166-68 (4th Cir. 2016). Because
Lewis waited over eighteen years after the dismissal of his
§ 2255 Motion to bring his Rule 60(b) Motion and his
Second Rule ...