Brims v. Collado

Background

Edward Brims, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his January 27, 2012 conviction in New York State Supreme Court, Rockland County. In 2022, the court adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denied the petition. Brims later sought reconsideration, but the court denied his request for a stay and he did not submit the required supporting memorandum.

On November 25, 2024, Brims filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) asking the court to vacate the judgment as void. Rule 60(b)(4) permits relief when a judgment is legally invalid because of a fundamental defect, such as a lack of jurisdiction or a violation of due process.

Arguments and analysis

Brims argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because he had received full transactional immunity barring prosecution for crimes connected to his second grand-jury testimony. The respondent argued that Brims had waived immunity in writing and that the court’s jurisdiction arose under § 2254.

The court rejected Brims’s jurisdiction argument for three reasons. First, it had jurisdiction because Brims was incarcerated under a New York state-court judgment when he filed his habeas petition. Second, the immunity issue concerned the merits of his habeas claim, not the court’s jurisdiction. Third, even on the merits, Brims did not have immunity because he had signed a written waiver before his first grand-jury testimony. The court also stated that Brims’s failure to respond to the respondent’s opposition effectively conceded the argument.

Brims separately argued that the judgment violated due process because the court did not hold an evidentiary hearing and improperly denied his discovery motion. The court stated that a Rule 60 motion could not be used to present new theories that were not raised with the original motion. It also ruled that no evidentiary hearing was required and that denying discovery did not violate due process.

The court noted serious questions about whether Brims’s motion was filed within a reasonable time because it came approximately 25 months after the 2022 judgment. The court did not decide the timeliness issue, however, because it denied the motion on the grounds discussed above.

Disposition

The court denied Brims’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion. Judge Kenneth M. Karas also denied Brims’s motion to stay the decision because Brims did not explain the alleged need for a stay or why the requested grand-jury testimony was necessary. The court denied Brims’s motion to waive filing fees as moot and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions and mail Brims a copy of the order.