United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division
Isiah James, Jr. # 96883 Petitioner,
Warden, Ridgeland Correctional Institution, Respondent.
L. WOOTEN Chief United States District Judge
Isiah James, Jr., a prisoner proceeding pro se,
filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)
on April 13, 2017. ECF No. 130. Petitioner challenges the
Court's entry of Summary Judgment for the Respondent on
September 13, 2010 and requests relief from the November 17,
2016 Order denying his previous Rule 60 motion. Id.
filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on June 18, 2008. ECF No.
1. Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on October
16, 2009. ECF Nos. 41-47. Because Petitioner is proceeding
pro se, the Court issued an order on or about
October 20, 2009, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison,
528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Petitioner of the
Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and the possible
consequences if he failed to respond adequately. ECF No. 48.
Petitioner filed a Response in Opposition to Respondent's
Motion, ECF No. 50, and a Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF
No. 51, both on November 10, 2009. On August 4, 2010, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) recommending that Respondent's
Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that
Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. ECF
No. 79. Petitioner objected to the Report on August 20, 2010.
ECF No. 67. On September 13, 2010, this Court accepted the
Report, overruled Petitioner's objections, granted the
Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, and denied
Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 84.
filed a Motion to Alter Order on September 24, 2010, ECF No.
72, seeking alteration of the Court's September 2010
Order Ruling on the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 69.
Respondent filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to
Alter Order on October 1, 2010. ECF No. 74. By Order docketed
on October 12, 2010, the Court denied Petitioner's Motion
to Alter Order. ECF No. 75. Petitioner appealed, and the
Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal and declined to issue a
certificate of appealability. ECF No. 94.
one year later on December 13, 2012, Petitioner filed a
“Motion to Set Aside” the September 2010 Order.
ECF No. 95. That motion was denied on January 28, 2013. ECF
No. 97. Petitioner then filed a Notice of Appeal of the 2013
order denying the Motion to Set Aside. ECF No. 103. The
Fourth Circuit declined to issue a certificate of
appealability and dismissed the appeal on June 20, 2013. ECF
filed a second “Motion to Alter” the September
2010 Judgment. ECF No. 99. On March 13, 2013, the Court
denied the motion. ECF No. 108. Petitioner appealed and the
appeal was terminated. ECF Nos. 112, 118. Thereafter
Petitioner filed two motions pursuant to Rule 60(b) asking
that the Court vacate its September 2010 Order and requesting
that Judge Wooten and a magistrate judge be disqualified. ECF
No. 119, 120. The motions were denied, ECF No. 123, and the
appeal of the denial was dismissed by the Fourth Circuit, ECF
matter is now before the Court for consideration of
Petitioner's April 13, 2017 motion, filed over six years
after the Court denied his § 2254 petition. ECF No. 130.
Petitioner seeks to vacate the Court's November 17, 2016
Order denying his previous Rule 60 motions. Id.
motion seeks “relief from judgment” pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and (6). ECF No.
130. The basis of Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion is not
entirely clear, but he requests relief from the November 2016
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5)-(6) provides:
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 reasons:
(5) the judgment 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;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). After careful review, the Court finds
that Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion is meritless and
untimely and he ...