THOMAS M. KELLY, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
Thomas M. Kelly, pro se.
Pittsburgh, PA, for the petitioner.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENISE COTE, District Judge.
On September 3, 2013, petitioner Thomas Kelly ("Kelly"), proceeding pro se, filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court's August 20, 2013 Order. For the reasons explained below, the motion is denied.
The procedural posture of this case is akin to a Russian Matryoshka doll, with four layers. The first layer is Kelly's 2009 conviction through guilty plea to wire fraud. That conviction was affirmed by summary order in 2010. The second layer is the Kelly's 2012 petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his guilty plea, which was denied on July 25, 2012. The third layer is Kelly's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the habeas denial, which was filed on July 25, 2013, and was denied on August 20, 2013. The fourth layer is the motion for reconsideration of the Rule 60(b) denial, which is the present motion.
Although Kelly's present motion is framed in procedural terms - as will be explained below - his basic position is substantive. Specifically, he contends that this Court erred in denying his habeas petition in two ways: (1) it failed to address his allegation that he was denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel when his trial lawyer gave him faulty legal advice; and (2) it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve various factual disputes.
Kelly raised these arguments in a Rule 60(b) motion. Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a judgment and sets forth six distinct bases for granting such relief:
(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) 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 ...