Proctor v. Director, Department of Corrections, No. 7:2011cv00202 - Document 50 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER denying 48 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 12/13/2018. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
cLEM 'sOFFICE u.8.DIST,CQURT ATDANM LLE,VA ' FILED DE2 l3 2213 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R TH E W ESTERN DISTRICT O F V IR G IN IA R OA N O K E DIW SIO N ERIN DEAN PRO CTOR, JULIA C.DUDLEY C E BY:. W'DEPU CLE K CASE NO .7:11CV00202 Petitioner, OPINION & ORDER DlR.,DEP'T OF CO1tR., By:Hon.Jacltson L.K iser Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge R espondent. Erin Dean Proctor, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro >ç. , has subm itted a m otion for - reconsideration ptlrsuantto Rule60(b)(6),seekingreconsideration ofthe 2011dismissalofhis 28U.S.C.j2254petition.Afterreview oftherecord,Idenythemotion. Rule60(b)allowsapartytoseekrelieffrom afinalciviljudgmentin alimitedntlmberof circumstances,including:(1) mistake or neglect' ,(2) newly discovered evidence;(3) fraud; (4)thejudgmentis void;(5)thejudgmenthasbeen satisfied;and (6)çtany otherreason that justifiesrelief.'' Fed.R.Civ.P.60(b). W hen apetitionerseeksRule 60relieffrom thecourt's ' judgmentdenyinghisj2254 petition,hemustdemonstrateGssomedefectintheintegrity ofthe federal habeas proceedings''to justify revisiting the judgment denying lnis oljginalhabeas petition, such as an erroneous finding of procedural default or a statute of limitations bar. Gonzalezv.Crosby,545U.S.524,532 (2005).ToobtainreliefunderRule60(b),Proctormust Proctor v. Director, Department of Corrections Doc. 50 show fottrfactors:(1)timeliness,(2)ameritoriousdefense;(3)alack oftmfairprejudicetothe Dockets.Justia.com opposingparty;and (4)exceptionalcircllmstances.W ernerv.Carbo,731F.2d204,206-07(4th Cir. 1984).1 Under j 2244(d)(1),a petitionermusttqle hisfederalhabeaspetition within one year from thelatestofwhen:(1)hisconviction becamefnalbytheoonclusionofdired review orthe expiration ofthetimeforseeking spchreview,(2)atlyillegalstatecreated impedimenttofiling wasremoved,(3) the United States Supreme Cotlrtrecognized a new,retroactively applied ' constitutionalright,or(4)thefactualpredicateoftheclaim couldhavebeen discoveredthrough duediligence.28U.S.C.j2244(d)(l). A petitioner can ççtoll''the federal habeas statm e of lim itation in tw o w ays: statutory . tolling and equitable tolling. Statutory tolling occtlrs when a petitioner files a state habeas petition within the federalstatute oflimitation period. The federalhabeasstatuteoflim itation is then tolled forthe duration ofthestatehabeasproceeding. 28 U.S.C.j 2244(d)(2). Equitable tollingoccursonly ifapetitionershows(:141)thathehasbeen pursuinghisrightsdiligently,and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way' and prevented timely filing.'' Hollandv.Florida,560 U.S.631,649 (2010)(quotingPacev.DiGuclielmo,544,U.S.408,418 (2005)). lI. ln 2011,Iconcluded thatProctor'sj 2254 petition wastime-barred. Specifically,the statute oflim itationsran for370 days: (1)Hisconvictionbecamefinalon December10,2009.SeeSup.Ct.R.1341). 1Atthethreshold, Ifind thatProctorfailsto demonstrate factor1, because thedelay in filing the m otion wasunreasonable- proctorfiled the currentm otion seven yearsafterhispetition wasdism issed, andoversix yearsafterhisappealwasdismissed.Fed.R.Civ.P.60(c)(1)(1GA motionunderRule60(b) mustbemadewithinareasonabletime.'').Forfactors2 and4,themotion'slack ofmeritandexceptional circum stancesarediscussed below .Asto thethird requirem ent,1did notrequestbriefing on unfair prejudicefrom therespondent. 2 (2)Hedidnotappeal,butfiledastatehabeaspetition in thecircuitcourtonM arch 7,2010, 86 daysafterhisconviction became final. (3)Theoircuitcourtdenied hispetition on July 14j2010. He appealed,butthe Supreme CourtofVirginiadismissedtheappealforfailuretocomplywith Va.Sup.Ct.R.5:17(c). (4)The statm eoflimitationsran for285 days,from July 15,2010,untilProctorplaced his j2254petitionintheprisonmailsystem onApril25,2011. On December3,2018,Proctorfileda motion undçrRule 60(b)(6)seekingreinstatementofbis petition and/oranotherchance to file a j2254 petition.z He assertsthat(1)the court's2011 decision was incon-ect regarding Va. Sup. Ct.R. 5:1, 5:17, and 28 U.S.C. j 2254; (2) extraordinary circum stances tolled the statute of lim itations and/or precluded a finding of proceduraldefault;and(3)M artinezv.Ryan,566U.S.1(2012)entitleshim tofederalreview of them eritsofhispetition. 111. Proctor'sRule 60(b)motion mustfailbecausehefailsto deinonstratethatIimproperly tim e-barred hispetition in 2011,hispetition is otherwise entitled to review,orhe is entitled to file a new petition. First,1correctly tim e-barred his petition in 2011. M em .Op.3-6,ECF N o. 32;see also Christian v.Baskerville,232 F.Supp.2d 605,607 (E.D.Va.2001)(holding that Ctpetitioner's appeal of the denial of habeas relief' was ûçnot properly filed pursuant to j2244(d)(2)''becausethepetitioner(Gfailedtomeettheform requirementsforproperlyfilingan appealin the Supreme Couz' tofVirginia''tmderVa.Sup.Ct.R.5:17(c))' ,seealso Escalantev. W atson,488Fed.App'x 694,697-98 (4th Cir.2012)(explicitly agreeing with Christian'slogic andfindingthatpetitionsthatfailtocomplywithVa.Sup.Ct.R.5:17(c)donottollthestatuteof 2Atone pointin hismotion,Proctorstates:StA lthough Proctordoesnotarguethem eritsofhis defaulted claims,he doeslend supportto suggestthathe hasam eritoriousdefenseto the proceduralbar. Jonesv.CityofRichmond,106F.R.D.485(E.D.Va.1985).''M ot.forRecons.!20,ECFNo.48. limitationsunderj2244(d)(2)).Therefore,thestatuteoflimitationsbegan torun whenProctor failedtocomplywithVa.Sup.Ct.R.5:17(c),andexpiredonApril20,2011. Second,he hasnotdem onstrated thathispetition isotherwise entitled to federalreview . He has not asserted arguments that his petition is timely tmder j 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D). Furthennore,he hasnotdem onstrated thatequitable tolling is appropriate. Proctor argues that his deficient knowledge and lack of attorney in his collateral review proceedings created extraordinary circumstancesthatentitlehim to equitablerelief. However,Gçignorance ofthe 1aw is not a basis for equitable tolling,''and counsel is not constitutionally m andated on collateral review.UnitedStatesv.Sosa,364F.3d507,512 (4th Cir.2004);M allardv.UnitedStatesDist. forS.Dist.oflowa,490 U.S.296,309 (1989). Lastly,hehasnotdemonstrated aftmdnmental miscarriageofjusticeorthathedeservesaçdsecondbite''atthehabeasapple.SeeM couicgin v. Perlcins,569 U.S.383 (2013)(requiring compelling evidence offacmalinnocence to excuse federalhabeastime-bar);28 U.S.C.j 2244(19(2) (requiring previously undiscoverable facttzal predicate or clear and convincing evidence thatno reasonable factfinder w ould have fotm d the petitionerguiltyforasuccessivepetitiontobeconsidered). Third,M artinezdoesnotexcusethefederalhabeastime-bar.5. * Arthm v.Thomas,739 F.3d 611,630 (11th Cir.2014);W ilson v.Perry,No.1;14CV576,2014 W L 4685405,at*1 (M .D.N.C.Sept.19,2014)(collectingcasesagreeingwithThomas). 4 IV . For the foregoing reasons, it is O R DER ED that Petitioner's M otion for Relief f' rom JudgmenttmderFederalRuleofCivilProcedtlre60(b)isDENIED. EN TER ED this tp Gdayofoecember, 2018. 10 UN ITED STATES D ISTRICT JUD GE 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
