Gibbons v. Knutson
- Donovan Frank
- 0:18-cv-00914
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Gibbons v. Knutson, Judge Frank denied Gibbons’s Rule 60 motions because an appeal transferred jurisdiction and he showed no extraordinary circumstances.
Andrew James Gibbons’s two motions for relief from the final judgment were denied; the court’s earlier dismissal of his habeas action remained in place.
What happened
In Gibbons v. Knutson, the court had already denied Andrew James Gibbons’s petition challenging his custody under federal habeas law and dismissed the case with prejudice. Judgment was entered the next day.
Gibbons later filed two motions seeking relief from the final judgment under Rule 60, and he also appealed the court’s habeas decision. He argued that he had not procedurally defaulted his claim, but the court said he had already litigated that issue and could pursue it in his appeal.
Judge Donovan W. Frank denied both motions. The court said the appeal transferred jurisdiction to the appeals court and, alternatively, that Gibbons had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for the requested relief.
The detailed version
- Gibbons v. Knutson · No. 0:18-cv-00914
- Donovan Frank
- June 19, 2019
Background
On March 7, 2019, the court adopted Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer’s Report and Recommendation and overruled Andrew James Gibbons’s objections. The court denied Gibbons’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissed the action with prejudice. Judgment was entered on March 8, 2019.
Gibbons then filed a motion seeking permission to correct citations and amend parts of his earlier objections. The court denied that motion on March 28, 2019, finding that it was untimely and that the proposed changes would not have affected the earlier decision.
Rule 60 Motions and Appeal
On April 4, 2019, Gibbons filed two motions under Rule 60, which allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment. On the same day, he filed a notice of appeal challenging the court’s decision in the habeas action.
Court’s Analysis
The court ruled that Gibbons’s appeal transferred jurisdiction over the challenged decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On that basis alone, the court concluded that the Rule 60 motions were properly denied.
The court also considered the motions on their merits. It noted that Gibbons filed them within a reasonable time, but concluded that he had not shown the “extraordinary circumstances” required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Gibbons argued that he had not procedurally defaulted his claim. The court held that his disagreement with its analysis did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance. The court further stated that Gibbons had litigated that issue and could pursue it in his appeal.
Disposition
The court ordered that Gibbons’s two motions for Rule 60 relief were denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.