Wiles v. Warden

Background

Paul Gregory Wiles filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while representing himself. In an earlier order dated March 1, 2019, the court treated that petition as a second or later motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and transferred it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Wiles appealed, and he separately moved to stay, or pause, the transfer order while pursuing the appeal.

The Second Circuit dismissed Wiles’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction on May 6, 2019. Wiles then filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), challenging the March 1 transfer order. The opinion also notes Wiles’s assertion that he did not know he needed to ask the Eleventh Circuit to transfer the petition back to the district court.

Rule 60(b) analysis

Rule 60(b) permits relief from an order or judgment for listed reasons, including mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court stated that Wiles had not alleged facts supporting relief under the first five categories.

For Rule 60(b)(6), the catchall provision, a party must show that the request was made within a reasonable time and that extraordinary circumstances justify relief. The court concluded that Wiles had not alleged facts showing extraordinary circumstances. It therefore denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) and also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

Ruling

Judge Colleen McMahon denied Wiles’s motion to stay the March 1, 2019 transfer order as moot. The court also denied Wiles’s Rule 60(b) motion. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail Wiles a copy of the order and record service on the docket. Finally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.