OFFICE OF THE CLERK IN THe' JOE CLARK MITCI-IELL, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for a

37 Pages·2008·0.56 MB·English

Supreme Court, U.S.
FILED
No. 08-
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
IN THe’
JOE CLARK MITCI-IELL,
Petitioner,
V,
JOHN REES,
Respondent.
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Jeffrey L. Fisher Amy Howe
STANFORD LAW SCHOOL Counsel of Record
SUPREME COURT Kevin K. Russell
LITIGATION CLINIC HOWE & RUSSELL, P.C.
559 Nathan Abbott Way 7272 Wisconsin Ave.
Stanford, CA 94305 Suite 300
Bethesda, MD 20814
[phone]
Paul R. Bottei Thomas C. Goldstein
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL AKIN, GtmiP, STRAUSS,
PUBLIC DEFENDER HAUER ~ FELD LLP
810 Broadway, Suite 200 1333 New Hampshire
Nashville, TN 37203 Ave., NV~
Washington, DC 20036
VVILSON-EPE8 PRINTING CO., IN(;;. -- [phone] -- WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002
QUESTION PRESENTED
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a
party to seek relief from a final judgment for "(1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect
¯ . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the
operation of judgment." Motions filed under
subsection i must be made "no more than a year after
the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the
proceeding" from which relief is sought, while those
filed under subsection 6 must instead be made
"within a reasonable time." FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1).
In this case, the district court granted petitioner’s
Rule 60(b)(6) motion, reasoning that the facts of
petitioner’s case - including the court of appeals’
explicit abrogation of the legal rule on which
petitioner’s conviction had been sustained and this
Court’s abrogation of the legal rule that prevented
petitioner from seeking relief earlier - constituted
extraordinary circumstances supporting relief under
Rule 60(b)(6). The court of appeals reversed, holding
that because petitioner alleged legal error as part of
the basis for his Rule 60(b)(6) motion, he was instead
required to bring his motion pursuant to Rule
60(b)(1) - under which petitioner’s motion was
untimely. The question presented is:
May a federal court ever grant a motion for relief
from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(6) in a case involving legal error?
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED ...........................................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................i.v
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI .............1.
OPINIONS BELOW ....................................................1
JURISDICTION ...........................................................1
RELEVANT FEDERAL RULES ...............................1..
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .....................................2
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ...............1. 1
I. The Federal Courts Are Intractably Divided
Over Whether Federal Rule Of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(6) Can Be Used To Correct
Legal Error ..........................................................12
II. The Sixth Circuit’s Decision Conflicts With
This Court’s Precedents ....................................2.1.
CONCLUSION ..........................................................29
APPENDIX
A. Court of Appeals Decision in Mitchell III ........la..
B. District Court Decision in Mitchell III ...........1..2a
C. Court of Appeals Decision in Mitchell H .......3..4a
D. District Court Decision in Mitchell H ............3..8a
E. Court of Appeals Decision in Mitchell I .........6..4a
F. District Court Decision in Mitchell I .............9..1a
G. Denial of Rehearing En Banc in
Mitchell III ......................................................100a
ooo
111
District Court Order Granting Habeas in
Ho
Mitchell III ......................................................102a
District Court Entry of Final Judgment
in Mitchell H ...................................................104a
J° District Court Order Granting Habeas
in Mitchell H ...................................................105a
K° District Court Order Granting Habeas
in Mitchell I .....................................................107a
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Abdur’Rahman v. Bell,
226 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2000) .........................8, 9, 26
Ackermann v. United States,
340 U.S. 193 (1950) ...............................................24
Artuz v. Bennett,
531 U.S. 4 (2000) ...................................................24
Balark v. City of Chicago,
81 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 1996) ...................................19
Batson v. Kentucky,
476 U.S. 79 (1986) ......................................... passim
Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Trustees of UMWA
Combined Ben. Fund,
249 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2001) .................................14
City of Morgantown v. Royal Ins. Co.,
337 U.S. 254 (1949) ...............................................19
CNF Constructors, Inc. vo Donohoe Const. Co.,
57 F.3d 395 (4th Cir. 1995) ...................................16
Compton v. Alton Steamship Co.,
608 F.2d 96 (4th Cir. 1979) ...................................17
Gleash v. Yuswak,
308 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2002) .................................16
Gonzalez v. Crosby,
545 U.S. 524 (2005) ....................................... passim
Harbison v. Bell,
503 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2007) .................................13
Harries v. Bell,
417 F.3d 631 (6th Cir. 2005) .........................8, 9, 26
V
Int’l Controls Corp. v. Vesco,
556 F.2d 665 (2d Cir. 1977) ..................................14
Klapprott v. United States,
335 U.S. 601 (1949) .....................................3, 22, 23
Kramer v. Gates,
481 F.3d 788 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ...............................15
Lairsey v. Advance Abrasives Co.,
542 F.2d 928 (5th Cir. 1976) .................................14
Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.,
486 U.S. 847 (1988) .........................................23, 24
Lowry v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
211 F.3d 457 (8th Cir. 2000) .................................17
Martinez-McBean v. Government of Virgin
Islands,
562 F.2d 908 (3d Cir. 1977) ..................................18
McCurry ex rel. Turner v. Adventist Health
Sys. / Sunbelt, Inc.,
298 F.3d 586 (6th Cir. 2002) .....................11, 13, 14
McDowell v. Dynamics Corp. of Am.,
931 F.2d 380 (6th Cir. 1991) .................................13
McMillan v. MBank Fort Worth, N.A.,
4 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 1993) .....................................15
McQueen v. Scroggy,
99 F.3d 1302 (6th Cir. 1996) .................9, 10, 26, 27
Mitchell v. Rees,
114 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 1997), cert. denied,
522 U.S. 1120 (1998) .......................................... 7, 27
Mitchell v. Rees,
523 U.S. 1090 (1998) ...............................................7
Mitchell v. Rees,
537 U.S. 830 (2002) .................................................8
vi
Nat’l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Gray,
1 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 1993) .......................................8
Page v. Schweiker,
786 F.2d 150 (3d Cir. 1986) ..................................19
Pierce v. Cook & Co.,
518 F.2d 720 (10th Cir. 1975) ...............................19
Pierce v. United Mine Workers of Am. Welfare &
Ret. Fund,
770 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1985) ...........................14, 15
Pridgen v. Shannon,
380 F.3d 721 (3d Cir. 2004) ..................................18
Rice v. Ford Motor Co.,
88 F.3d 914 (llth Cir. 1996) ................................1. 8
Ritter v. Smith,
811 F.2d 1398 (llth Cir. 1987) ............................1. 8
Schildhaus v. Moe,
335 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1964) ..................................14
Scott v. Singletary,
38 F.3d 1547 (llth Cir. 1994) ..............................1. 8
Silk v. Sandoval,
435 F.2d 1266 (lst Cir. 1971) ..............................1. 6
Spinar v. South Dakota Board of Regents,
796 F.2d 1060 (8th Cir. 1986) ...............................16
State v. Mitchell,
No. 87-152-III, 1988 WL 32362 (Tenn. Ct.
App. Apr. 7, 1988) ....................................................4
Townsend v. Soc. Sec. Admin.,
486 F.3d 127 (6th Cir. 2007) .................................14
United States v. Erdoss,
440 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1971) ................................15
vii
United States v. Williams,
674 F.2d 310 (4th Cir. 1982) .................................16
Van Skiver v. United States,
952 F.2d 1241 (10th Cir. 1991) .............................19
Venegas-Hernandez v. Sonolux Records,
370 F.3d 183 (lst Cir. 2004) .................................16
Williamsburg Wax Museum, Inc. v. Historic
Figures, Inc.,
810 F.2d 243 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ...............................15
Zurich American Insurance Co. v. International
Fibercom Inc. (In re Int’l Fibercom, Inc.),
503 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2007) .................................17
Statutes
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(AEDPA),
Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) .........10
Rules
FED. R. CIV. PROC. 59(e) ....................................... 15, 16
FED. R. CF¢. PROC.60(b) ..................................... passim
FED. R. CIV. PROC.60(b)(1) ................................passim
FED. R. CFv. PROC.60(b)(2) ..........................................3
FED. R. CF¢. PROC. 60(b)(3) ..........................................3
FED. R. CIV. PROC. 60(b)(4) ..........................................3
FED. R. CIv. PROC.60(b)(5) ..........................................3
FED. R. CIV. PROC.60(b)(6) ................................ passim
FED. R. CIV. PROC.60(c)(1) ............................................i
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner Joe Clark Mitchell respectfully
petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit.
OPINIONS BELOW
The opinion of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Pet. App. la) is
unpublished but is reported at 261 Fed. Appx. 825
(6th Cir. 2008). The district court’s decision granting
petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant
to Rule 60(b)(6) (Pet. App. 12a) appears at 430 F.
Supp. 2d 717 (M.D. Tenn. 2006).
JURISDICTION
The judgment of the court of appeals was entered
on January 9, 2008. Pet. App. la. A timely petition
for rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied on
July 17, 2008. Pet. App. 100a. This Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
RELEVANT FEDERAL RULES
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 provides, in
relevant part:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment,
Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just
terms, the court may relieve a party or its
legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect;
2
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged; it is based on an
earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.
(1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b)
must be made within a reasonable time --
and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than
a year after the entry of the judgment or
order or the date of the proceeding.
STATEMENT OF TI-IE CASE
This case presents an important question of
federal civil procedure over which the federal courts
of appeals are intractably divided: whether a court
may ever grant a motion for relief from judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) that
rests in part on a claim of legal error. The district
court held below that petitioner’s case presented
precisely the kind of extraordinary circumstances
justifying relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6): absent
such relief and despite his diligence, petitioner would
serve consecutive life sentences as a result of an