Jordan v. United States
- Denise Cote
- 1:18-cv-03372
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Jordan v. United States, Judge Cote denied Joseph Jordan’s untimely second request to undo denial of his conviction-challenge petition.
Joseph Jordan, whose second request to undo the denial of his federal conviction-challenge petition was denied; the court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
What happened
In Jordan v. United States, Joseph Jordan, representing himself, asked the court for a second time to undo its denial of his petition challenging his conviction under federal law. The court had denied that petition in August 2019, and Jordan’s appeal of that decision was still pending.
Jordan filed his new request under Rule 60(b), which allows limited relief from a court judgment. The court ruled that the request was untimely under both the deadline for reconsideration and the deadline for appealing the earlier decision. It also ruled that Jordan could not use this request to repeat arguments already presented in his pending appeal.
Judge Denise Cote denied the Rule 60(b) motion. She also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and found that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Jordan v. United States · No. 1:18-cv-03372
- Denise Cote
- Dec. 21, 2020
Background
Joseph Jordan, proceeding without a lawyer, was convicted by a jury in October 2008 on five counts, principally involving witness tampering and transmitting threatening communications. After the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction in March 2016, Jordan filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. The district court denied that petition on August 30, 2019.
Jordan later asked the district court to reconsider that decision. The court denied that request on October 1, 2019. Jordan had also filed a notice of appeal from the August 2019 decision, and that appeal remained pending when he filed the motion addressed in this opinion.
Rule 60(b) motion
On August 4, 2020, Jordan filed another request for relief from the August 2019 decision, characterizing it as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides limited grounds for relief from a judgment, but it is not a substitute for an appeal. The court explained that a motion based on a judge’s error under Rule 60(b)(1) is time-barred after the appeal deadline expires. Local Rule 6.3 also required a motion for reconsideration within fourteen days of the challenged decision.
The court calculated that Jordan’s deadline for reconsideration was September 13, 2019, and his deadline to appeal—and therefore to bring the Rule 60(b) motion on the grounds asserted—was October 29, 2019. Because Jordan filed the motion in August 2020, the court held that it was untimely under either deadline. The court also held that Jordan could not use Rule 60(b) to duplicate the arguments already presented in his pending appeal.
The court further explained that a Rule 60(b) motion attacking the substance of a prior federal habeas decision may be treated as a second or successive petition, while a motion alleging a defect in the integrity of the earlier proceeding may not be. The court found that Jordan’s motion attacked the merits of the August 2019 decision rather than the integrity of the proceeding. It stated that, even if the motion had been timely, it would be denied.
Disposition
The court denied Jordan’s August 4, 2020 petition, which he characterized as a Rule 60(b) motion. It also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Jordan had not made a substantial showing that a federal right was denied. Finally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court found that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.