United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
A. White United States District Judge Eastern District of
October 20, 2014, Petitioner filed this habeas corpus action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his loss of
earned credits as a result of a prison disciplinary hearing
for the misconduct of Battery (Dkt. 1). On August 1, 2016,
the petition was dismissed as barred by the one-year statute
of limitations imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (Dkt. 20).
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on September 26, 2016
(Dkt. 25), and on November 8, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely in Case No.
16-7074 (Dkt. 31). On February 15, 2017, Petitioner filed in
this Court a “motion to remand to the Eastern District
of Oklahoma to allow making an amended pleading and for
further proceedings pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), (3),
(6)” (Dkt. 32).
forth in the Court's previous Orders (Dkts. 16, 20),
Petitioner entered a “no contest” plea to a
prison misconduct for Battery, and punishment was imposed on
June 28, 2012 (Dkt. 10-6). Petitioner claims that in exchange
for changing his disciplinary plea from “not
guilty” to “no contest, ” the Disciplinary
Investigator included a written stipulation constructed by
Petitioner stating that Petitioner would not be prosecuted
for any criminal charges predicated on the facts of the
misconduct incident (Dkt. 19 at 1-2). Petitioner, however,
was prosecuted in Woodward County District Court Case No.
2012-289 for Aggravated Assault and Battery,  which he claims
was contrary to the terms of the alleged written agreement
foreclosing criminal prosecution.
argues the ambiguous wording in the Judgment and Sentence for
the Woodward County conviction has resulted in denial of
credits he should have received (Dkt. 32 at 4). He also
claims his prosecution in state court constituted a double
jeopardy violation, because he had a “binding
contract” signed by the prison's hearing officer
stating that “street law violations would not be filed
with the district attorney.” Id. at 4-5.
Petitioner complains that because of the statute of
limitations in this case, his “valid issues fell upon
[the] deaf ears of the Honorable Federal Court” (Dkt.
32 at 2). He further states he has “restructured his
pleading to remand to Eastern District to clarify reasons he
should not be procedurally barred from making his habeas
claims causing him significant hardships, illegal detainment,
[and] lengthened prison sentence.” Id.
addition, Petitioner makes conclusory claims about the
effectiveness of his counsel, his alleged innocence, the
voluntariness of his plea, and perjured testimony, among
other things, apparently related to his conviction in
Woodward County District Court Case No. 2012-289, not the
disciplinary hearing at issue in this petition. He apparently
believes his habeas petition was denied pursuant to a
procedural bar, which he states he can overcome by showing a
fundamental miscarriage of justice. The petition, however,
was not denied because of a procedural default. It was
instead barred by the statute of limitations.
pertinent portions of Rule 60(b) allow relief from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; .
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; . . .
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “Rule 60(b) relief ‘is
extraordinary and may only be granted in exceptional
circumstances.'” Zurich North America v. Matrix
Service, Inc., 426 F.3d 1281, 1289 (10th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d
1005, 1009 (10th Cir. 2000)). Furthermore, “[i]n a Rule
60(b) proceeding the motion is addressed to the sound
discretion of the [district] court.” Caribou Four
Corners v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 443 F.2d 796, 799 (10th
Cir. 1971) (citations omitted).
Court has carefully reviewed the record and construes
Petitioner's pleadings liberally. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). To the extent he is
challenging the dismissal of this petition challenging his
disciplinary proceedings, the Court finds he has raised no
issues that would allow relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1),
(3), or (6).
extent Petitioner is attempting to challenge his conviction
and sentence in the Woodward County criminal case, that
matter is not the subject of this lawsuit, and this Court has
made no rulings regarding that criminal prosecution.
Petitioner's “motion to remand to the Eastern
District of Oklahoma to allow making an amended pleading and
for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), (3),
(6)” (Dkt. 32) is DENIED.