Shaw v. State of Minnesota

Background

Rajni Shaw initially filed a habeas petition on July 21, 2021. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright later recommended dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Shaw had not submitted a filing fee or an application to proceed without paying the fee. After receiving no further filing from Shaw for nearly a year, the court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the petition without prejudice on April 27, 2022. Judgment was entered the next day.

The opinion states that Shaw apparently sought permission from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to file a successive habeas petition, but the Eighth Circuit denied that request in July 2022. Shaw filed the pending motion on October 31, 2022.

Motion and legal standard

Shaw labeled his filing a motion for a writ of mandamus, but the court said it was unclear what relief he sought or how the filing differed from his original request for habeas relief. Because judgment had already been entered, the court construed the motion as one seeking relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

Rule 60(b) allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or another reason justifying relief. The court explained that the last category applies only in extraordinary circumstances suggesting that the party was without fault in the delay. The court also cited authority stating that Rule 60(b) is not a vehicle for simply rearguing the merits.

Ruling

The court held that Shaw’s motion did not establish any basis for relief under Rule 60(b) and instead repeated material from his initial petition. The court therefore denied Shaw’s motion for a writ of mandamus [ECF No. 10].