United States District Court, S.D. New York
COLLEEN McMAHON, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
order dated March 1, 2019, the Court construed
Petitioner's pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as a
second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and
transferred it to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. The Court received Petitioner's notice
of appeal on March 14, 2019. (ECF 4.) The next day, the Court
received Petitioner's motion to stay the Court's
transfer order pending his appeal in United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. (ECF 5.)
6, 2019, the Second Circuit dismissed Petitioner's appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. Wiles v. Warden, F.C.I.
Otisville, No. 19-645 (2d Cir. May 6, 2019). On June 3,
2019, this Court received Petitioner's motion under Rule
60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in which he
challenges this Court's March 1, 2019 transfer order.
Court denies Petitioner's motion to stay as moot. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court also denies
Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion.
Rule 60(b), a party may seek relief from a district
court's order or judgment 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 other
misconduct of 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 justifying relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
liberal interpretation of the motion, Petitioner has failed
to allege any facts showing that any of the grounds listed in
the first five clauses of Rule 60(b) apply. Accordingly, to
the extent that Petitioner seeks relief under Rule
60(b)(1)-(5), the Court denies that relief.
Rule 60(b)(6) motion must be based upon some reason other
than those stated in clauses (1)-(5).” United
Airlines, Inc. v. Brien, 588 F.3d 158, 175 (2d Cir.
2009) (quoting Smith v. Sec'y of HHS, 776 F.2d
1330, 1333 (6th Cir. 1985)) (alteration in original, internal
quotation marks omitted). A person seeking Rule 60(b)(6)
relief must show both that his motion was filed within a
“reasonable time” and that “extraordinary
circumstances [exist] to warrant relief.” Old
Republic Ins. Co. v. Pac. Fin. Servs. of Am., Inc., 301
F.3d 54, 59 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and
has failed to allege any facts demonstrating that
extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant relief under
Rule 60(b)(6). See Ackermann v. United States, 340
U.S. 193, 199-202 (1950). Thus, to the extent that Petitioner
seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the Court denies that
relief as well.
Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this order
to Petitioner and note service on the docket. The Court
denies Petitioner's motion to stay the Court's March
1, 2019 transfer order as moot. (ECF 5.) The Court also
denies Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion. (ECF 8.)
Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),
that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good
faith, and therefore in forma pauper is status is
denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v.
United States,369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that
“a defendant's good faith in [a criminal] ...