Carter-Mitchell Jr. v. Hastings
- George Daniels
- 1:12-cv-04168
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Carter-Mitchell Jr. v. Hastings: Judge Daniels denied Carter-Mitchell’s requests to alter, reconsider, or reopen the judgment denying his habeas petition.
The order affected Wallace Carter-Mitchell, Jr.’s attempt to change or reopen the judgment denying his habeas petition. It denied his requests under Rule 59(e), Local Rule 6.3, and Rule 60(b), and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.
What happened
In Carter-Mitchell Jr. v. Hastings, Wallace Carter-Mitchell, Jr., representing himself, asked the court to change or reopen its earlier judgment denying his petition challenging the handling of his good-time credits. He argued that the court had overlooked disputed facts and had not explained why it denied an evidentiary hearing.
The court treated his filing as requesting relief under rules governing changes to judgments, reconsideration, and reopening final judgments. It found that his good-time-credit claim was not properly presented for habeas review and that he had not shown a valid reason or extraordinary circumstances for reopening the judgment.
Judge Daniels denied the requests under Rule 59(e), Local Rule 6.3, and Rule 60(b). The court also stated that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.
The detailed version
- Carter-Mitchell Jr. v. Hastings · No. 1:12-cv-04168
- George Daniels
- Oct. 19, 2023
Background
Wallace Carter-Mitchell, Jr., a self-represented petitioner, asked for relief from the court’s final order and judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argued that the earlier order did not consider “material facts in dispute” and did not explain why the court denied an evidentiary hearing. The respondents did not file an opposition.
Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3
The court construed the filing as also seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment, and Local Rule 6.3, which governs reconsideration requests in the Southern District of New York. The court stated that such a request requires showing that it overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented to it.
The court denied the request under Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3. It found that Carter-Mitchell had not shown that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing concerning his claim that he had forfeited already-earned good-time credits in violation of due process. Relying on the magistrate judge’s earlier findings, the court stated that the claim was unexhausted and, in any event, meritless. Because the claim was not properly before the court on habeas review, the court found no need for an evidentiary hearing.
Rule 60(b)
The court separately denied the request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court found that Carter-Mitchell had not shown that any of the first five listed grounds applied. It also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which requires extraordinary circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment. The court found that no such circumstances had been shown or alleged.
Disposition
Judge George B. Daniels denied Carter-Mitchell’s motion for relief from judgment. The clerk was directed to close the motion and mail the decision to him. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.