From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Roberts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
Mar 27, 2014
Criminal No. 3:09cr78-HEH (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2014)

Opinion

Criminal No. 3:09cr78-HEH

03-27-2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PRENTIS TREWAYNE ROBERTS, Petitioner.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Denying Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) Motion)

Prentis Trewayne Roberts, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, submitted a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence ("§ 2255 Motion"). (ECF No. 32.) By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on May 14, 2012, this Court dismissed Roberts's claims and denied the § 2255 Motion. United States v. Roberts, No. 3:09cr78-HEH, 2012 WL 1678074, at *4 (E.D. Va. May 14, 2012). On January 21, 2014, the Court received a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) Motion from Roberts ("Rule 60(b) Motion"). (ECF No. 69.) For the reasons set forth below, the Rule 60(b) Motion will be dismissed as untimely.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a court to "relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). It is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of exceptional circumstances. Mayfield 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 (1950)). The party seeking relief under Rule 60(b) must cross the "initial threshold" showing of "'[ (1) ] timeliness, [ (2) ] a meritorious [claim or] defense, [ (3) ] a lack of unfair prejudice to the opposing party, and [ (4) ] 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)).

In his Rule 60(b) Motion, Roberts asserts that the Court erred in dismissing his § 2255 Motion by incorrectly recounting the procedural history for his September 11, 2000 convictions of a probation violation charge and malicious wounding charge. (Rule 60(b) Mot. 3-4.) Because Roberts argues that the Court committed a mistake, Rule 60(b)(1) applies. See Johnson v. Kelly, Nos. 3:10CV086, 3:07CV737, 3:10CV299, 2010 WL 1172646, at *1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2010) (citing Taylor v. Va. Dep't Transp., 170 F.R.D. 10, 11 (E.D. Va. 1996)). Rule 60(b)(1) motions must be filed "no more than a year after the entry of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Because Roberts filed his Rule 60(b) Motion more than a year after the Court denied his § 2255 Motion, the Rule 60(b) Motion (ECF No. 69) will be denied as untimely. The Court will deny a certificate of appealability.

An appropriate Order shall issue.

__________

HENRY E. HUDSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: March 27, 2014
Richmond, Virginia


Summaries of

United States v. Roberts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
Mar 27, 2014
Criminal No. 3:09cr78-HEH (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2014)
Case details for

United States v. Roberts

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PRENTIS TREWAYNE ROBERTS, Petitioner.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

Date published: Mar 27, 2014

Citations

Criminal No. 3:09cr78-HEH (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2014)