United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
OPINION AND ORDER
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE, Senior United States District Judge.
matter is before the court on Defendant's motions to
“Clarify and Reconsider Motion to Void and/or Vacate
Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4); (b)(6), or, in the
Alternative, [for] an Independent Action for Relief from
Judgment Under Rule 60(d)(1) and (3), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, ” and to compel the United State Attorney to
“supplement or correct their disclosure or responses .
. . or alternatively an order reversing summary
judgment.” ECF Nos. 445, 446. Defendant again
contends the Government perpetrated fraud on the
court. In his motion to clarify/reconsider, he attempts to
argue he was “denied a fair and/or meaningful review of
his § 2255 pleadings in violation of due process,
” because he was not given a hearing and because the
Government's attorneys “knew that their responses
and disclosures to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 . . . were
inaccurate and incomplete.” ECF No. 445 at
His second motion requests the court compel the Government to
supplement/correct its response to Defendant's §
2255 motion, as he argues it was inaccurate. ECF No. 446.
has labeled his motion as one brought under Rule 60(b) and/or
(d). A “Rule 60(b) motion that challenges ‘some
defect in the integrity of the federal habeas
proceedings' . . . is a true Rule 60(b) motion . .
.” United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397
(4th Cir. July 13, 2015) (quoting Gonzalez v.
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows for relief
from a final judgment for “any other reason that
justifies relief.” While this catchall reason includes
few textual limitations, its context requires that it may be
invoked in only ‘extraordinary circumstances' when
the reason for relief from judgment does not fall within the
list of enumerated reasons given in Rule 60(b)(1)-(5).
Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 500 (4th Cir. 2011).
A 60(b)(6) motion must be filed on “just terms, ”
within “a reasonable time, ” and “have a
meritorious claim or defense and that the opposing party not
be unfairly prejudiced by having the judgment set
aside.” Id. (citing Nat'l Credit Union
Admin. Bd. v. Gray, 1 F.3d 262, 264 (4th Cir. 1993)). Rule
60(d) allows a court to “entertain an independent
action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or
Defendant argues he was denied a fair opportunity to seek
relief under § 2255 because he was not given a hearing.
However, Defendant cites no authority a hearing on a motion
under § 2255 is required, and the law is clear a hearing
is not required when the court determines the motion and
record show the petitioner is not entitled to relief. §
2255 (“Unless the motion and the files and the records
of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled
to no relief, the court shall . . . grant a prompt hearing
thereon.”); Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d
526, 529 (4th Cir. 1970) (“If the motion when viewed
against the record shows that the petitioner is entitled to
no relief, the court may summarily deny the motion.”).
The court reviewed the Petition and record in the case,
determined Defendant was not entitled to relief, granted
summary judgment to the Government, and denied Motions to
Reconsider pursuant to Rule 59(e) and 60(b). See C/A No.
5:99-4168, ECF Nos. 25, 33. Defendant appealed the denial of
his § 2255 motion, and the Fourth Circuit dismissed the
appeal. ECF No. 45.
cites United States v. Roderick Lamar Williams, No.
18-6797, 753 Fed.Appx. 176 (4th Cir. 2019), for the
proposition that “material misrepresentations during
the original 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings that prevented
him from fully and fairly presenting certain claims [were]
properly raised under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).” The court
agrees Defendant's allegations are ones proper for a Rule
60(b) motion, and will not dismiss this motion as a second or
successive § 2255 motion. However, that does not mean
his motion is adequate. Williams involved specific, clearly
articulated arguments regarding the DNA analysis in
Williams' case, and that defendant had documents to
support his claim. Here, Defendant's conclusory arguments
are insufficient to support a Rule 60 motion. In fact,
Defendant fails to set out any specific argument, much less
evidence, regarding why he believes the Government's
responses to his § 2255 motion “were inaccurate
Defendant's argument regarding fair and meaningful review
of his § 2255 motion (ECF No. 445), his current motion
is denied as the court fully considered the §2255 motion
and was not required to hold a hearing on a motion on which
he was entitled to no relief. Defendant's allegations
regarding the Government are insufficient to support his
motions to void the §2255 judgment and to compel the
Government to correct its responses. Defendant's motions
(ECF Nos. 445, 446, 447) are denied.
governing law provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if
the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate
which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required
by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard
by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find this
court's assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling
by the district court is likewise debatable. See
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel,529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee,252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In
this case, the legal standard for the ...