Bentley v. Hoovler

Background

Garfield D. Bentley filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while confined at Downstate Correctional Facility. He alleged that he was subjected to double jeopardy when he was convicted in Orange County Court for a charge that had previously been dismissed in Newburgh City Court.

On November 28, 2017, the court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. It held that success on Bentley’s claims would necessarily imply that his conviction was invalid, and that his claims were barred by the favorable-termination rule from Heck v. Humphrey because he had not alleged that the conviction had been overturned or otherwise invalidated. The court also stated that any direct challenge to the conviction or claim of ineffective assistance of counsel had to be brought in a federal petition challenging custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, after state-court remedies had been exhausted.

Bentley’s Later Letters

In February and March 2021, Bentley sent two letters asking to reopen the closed case and requesting an attorney to assist with what he called an “F.B.I. Habeas Corpus” matter. The court liberally construed the letters as a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a judgment for specified reasons, such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief.

Timeliness

The court held that Bentley’s request was untimely. Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (3) motions must be filed within one year after the challenged judgment. Bentley’s letters were submitted more than three years after the judgment closing the case. The court also held that the letters were not submitted within a reasonable time for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4), (5), or (6).

Attorney Requests and Disposition

The court denied Bentley’s requests for an attorney. It explained that, although his letters might indicate an intention to file a federal petition challenging his conviction, that petition could not be considered in the closed case. If Bentley filed such a petition, it would receive a new case number, and he could request an attorney in that new action.

The conclusion states that the court construed Bentley’s letters as a motion for reconsideration and denied the motion. The clerk was directed not to accept further submissions under the closed case number, except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.