United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION (DENYING RULE 60(b)
E.HUDSON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on May 7, 2004, the
Court denied a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
filed by Alphelious Rooks. (ECF Nos. 112, 112.) On December
7, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed in part, Rooks's
appeal. (ECF No. 130); United States v. Rooks, 117
Fed.Appx. 237 (4th Cir. 2004).
March 4, 2019, the Court received from Rooks a Motion to
Re-open Judgment under Rule 60(b) ("Rule 60(b)
Motion," ECF No. 217). Rooks argues that under Rule
60(b)(4) the Court's prior denial of his § 2255
Motion is void, and under Rule 60(b)(6) relief should be
granted, because the Court purportedly decided his claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel on the prejudice prong and
did not discuss whether counsel was deficient and also failed
to hold an evidentiary hearing.
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), Rooks was required
to file his motion within a reasonable time after the entry
of the May 7, 2004 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."). Rooks's Rule 60(b)
Motion, filed nearly 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, Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary
remedy requiring a showing of exceptional circumstances.
May field v. Nat'l Ass'n for Stock Car Auto
Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing
Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 202
fails to offer any persuasive argument as to why this Court
should find that his Rule 60(b) Motion 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). Moreover, "[a] motion under [Rule]
60(b)(6) may not be granted absent 'extraordinary
circumstances.'" MLCAuto., 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)). Rooks fails to demonstrate that extraordinary
circumstances warrant review of the Court's dismissal of
his § 2255 Motion or that he has a meritorious claim.
the Rule 60(b) Motion (ECF No. 217) will be denied. A
certificate of appealability will be denied.
appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(4) 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
(4) the judgment is void;