Runnels v. Sheriff, Gregg Cnty.
| Decision Date | 02 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 6:20-cv-00166,6:20-cv-00166 |
| Parties | William A. Runnels, Petitioner, v. Sheriff, Gregg County, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Before the court is petitioner William A. Runnels's motion to vacate judgment and for reinstatement. Doc. 23. Petitioner filed his motion more than 28 days after the entry of the final judgment. See Doc. 20. The motion will be construed as a motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Rule 60(b). See Pryor v. U.S. Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 285 (5th Cir. 1985) (). Petitioner seeks to reinstate his case and to have the court void the state court's judgment of contempt against petitioner. See Doc. 23. Because petitioner fails to raise any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances justifying relief, petitioner's motion for relief from judgment is denied.
Petitioner brought this suit under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2018 Gregg County child support contempt proceeding. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell.
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the petition be dismissed with prejudice and that certificate of appealability be denied. Doc. 9. Petitioner filed objections to the report and recommendation. Doc. 15. After conducting a de novo review of the objected-to portion of the magistrate judge's report, the court accepted the report and recommendation and dismissed the petition with prejudice. Doc. 19. A certificate of appealability was denied sua sponte. Doc. 20.
Relief will be granted only in "unique circumstances," and the district court has considerable discretion in determining whether the movant has carried the burden for Rule 60(b) relief. Pryor, 769 F.2d at 287; Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 1991).
Petitioner has the burden of establishing one of the Rule 60(b) provisions. See Wallace v. Magnolia Family Servs., L.L.C., No. 13-4703, 2015 WL 1321604, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 24, 2015) (citing Pryor, 769 F.2d at 286). And "it goes without saying that a Rule 60 motion is not a substitute for an appeal from the underlying judgment." Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enters., Inc., 38 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994).
Petitioner states that he is seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5). Petitioner's conclusory statements fail to establish exceptional circumstances warranting relief.
Petitioner states that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1) because he made a "mistake [by] failing to disclose that he timely sought an appeal on December 20, 2018 to the order of contempt." Doc. 23 at 2. He claims that he overlooked this detail because he could not access the TX.gov website and view the documents that were filed. He further states that the TXcourts.gov website did not allow him to view any of the documents filed in the appellate court during the period in which he submitted his objections and amended objections to the report and recommendation.
Texas's Sixth Court of Appeals website reflects that petitioner filed a notice of appeal on December 21, 2018, in Cause No. 06-18-0112-CV. The appeal was later dismissed for want of prosecution.1
Rule 60(b)(1) provides a party relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." As the movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(1), petitioner has the burden of establishing the mistake or excusable neglect regardless of whether he is proceeding pro se. See Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981) ().
Success under Rule 60(b)(1), requires that "the movant make a sufficient showing of unusual or unique circumstances justifying such relief." Pryor, 769 F.2d at 286. "Gross carelessness, ignorance of the rules, or ignorance of the law are insufficient bases for 60(b)(1) relief," and a district court abuses its discretion when it "reopen[s] a case under Rule 60(b)(1) when the reason asserted as justifying relief is one attributable solely to counsel's carelessness with or misapprehension of the law or the applicable rules of court." Edward H.Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 357 (5th Cir. 1993). "Even pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules, and ignorance of the law is not a basis for Rule 60(b)(1) relief." Vafaiyan v. City of Wichita Falls, 398 F. App'x 989, 990 (5th Cir. 2010).
Petitioner was found in contempt on April 4, 2018, by the 124th Judicial District Court of Gregg County, Texas. His jail sentence expired on September 30, 2018. Petitioner's "mistake" of failing to inform the court of his December 21, 2018 appeal filing does not affect the judgment here. The December 21, 2018 appeal filing does not establish that he was in custody at the time he filed his § 2254 federal petition in this court. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 491-92 (1989) (). Moreover, the untimely December 18, 2018 appeal filing would not toll the statute of limitations under the AEDPA, as discussed in the report and recommendation. Doc. 9 at 5-7. Petitioner's December 18, 2018 appeal in Cause No. 06-18-0112-CV suffers from the same defect as the June 7, 2018 appeal in Cause No. 12-18-146-CV and the June 7, 2018 appeal in Cause No. 06-18-00038-CV. Petitioner's mistake does not qualify as grounds to set aside the judgment under Rule 60(b)(1). Petitioner's request for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) is denied.
In the opening of petitioner's motion, he states that he is seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(2)'s newly discovered evidence provision. But petitioner does not discuss any newly discovered evidence in the body of his motion. Petitioner's request for relief under Rule 60(b)(2) is, therefore, denied.
Under Rule 60(b)(3), petitioner asserts that he raised an actual innocence claim in his motion to vacate and void judgment (Doc. 6), which he intended to be a supplement to hisoriginal federal petition. He argues that the magistrate judge did not address petitioner's "actual innocence claim in the report and recommendation." Doc. 23 at 2-4.
Rule 60(b)(3) permits relief from a judgment if the movant demonstrates fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. The petitioner must demonstrate "(1) that the adverse party engaged in fraud or other misconduct, and (2) that this misconduct prevented the moving party from fully and fairly presenting his case." Hesling, 396 F.3d at 641. The party moving for Rule 60(b)(3) relief from judgment "has the burden of proving the assertion by clear and convincing evidence." Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1339 (5th Cir. 1978).
Petitioner fails to demonstrate that an opposing party before this court engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct. Moreover, petitioner did not indicate in his motion to vacate (Doc. 6) that he was raising an actual innocence claim or that he intended his motion to be a supplement to his federal petition. Regardless, the court denied petitioner's actual innocence claim—raised for the first time in his objections to the report and recommendation—in its order adopting the report. Doc. 19 at 3. Petitioner's request for relief under Rule 60(b)(3) is denied.
Rule 60(b)(4) allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment if "the judgment is void." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). The rule only applies "in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard." United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010). The Fifth Circuit has found that jurisdictional errors warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(4) where "the initial court lacked subject matter or personal jurisdiction." Callon Petroleum Co. v. Frontier Ins., 351 F.3d 204,208 (5th Cir. 2003). A judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous. See Espinosa, 559 U.S. at 270.
Petitioner does not argue that this court lacked subject matter or personal jurisdiction over his federal habeas petition. He further cannot allege that the court deprived him of an opportunity to be heard. Petitioner's request for relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is denied.
Petitioner seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(5) without explanation. Rule 60(b)(5) permits a party to seek relief from a judgment that has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable. Petitioner does not explain how he is entitled to relief under this rule. The court is unaware of any changed circumstances regarding its judgment that would warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Therefore, petitioner's request for relief is denied.
Because petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court will examine his motion under Rule 60(b)(6)—a residual clause or catch-all provision—as well. Petitioner asserts that the court erred in finding that there is no direct appeal from the judgment finding petitioner in contempt. Petitioner does not provide any case...
To continue reading
Request your trial