Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denies Arick Marquette Johnson’s motions for reconsideration, to correct the record, to reopen the case, and to supplement the record. The court concludes that Johnson has not shown grounds for relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b), and that his state-court remedies remain unexhausted. The court grants Johnson’s motion for an extension of time to appeal and directs the Clerk to provide him with a copy of the order and docket sheet.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Johnson established grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b) to reconsider the prior dismissal without prejudice.
- Whether Johnson was entitled to reopen the case or correct the record based on the alleged misfiling of his protective § 2254 petition and his other asserted circumstances.
- Whether Johnson was entitled to an extension of time to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5).
Holdings
- Reconsideration was not warranted because Johnson identified no relevant error of fact or law and presented no newly discovered evidence.
- Johnson was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b) because he alleged no qualifying mistake, newly discovered evidence, void judgment, satisfaction or discharge of the judgment, or other exceptional circumstance justifying relief.
- The alleged misfiling did not warrant reopening or correction because Johnson admitted that any labeling error resulted from his own mislabeling, and the protective petition did not bear on the unexhausted state habeas petition that supported dismissal.
- The court extended Johnson's time to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) for 30 days after the prescribed time or 14 days after entry of the order granting the motion, whichever was later.
Key quotations
“It should be noted that Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” (Section I.A)
“Rule 60(b) “provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.”” (Section I.A)
Factual background
Johnson sought federal habeas relief while his direct appeal, Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 petition, and state habeas petition remained pending. He claimed that a protective § 2254 petition had been misfiled under another case number, that he lacked law-library access, and that state proceedings had been delayed. He also asserted that repeated attempts to mail a notice of appeal were returned because he used the wrong address.
Procedural history
The court previously dismissed Johnson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice after adopting Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin's recommendation. The recommendation concluded that Johnson's direct appeal, Rule 37 petition, and state habeas petition remained pending, that his conviction did not appear final, and that he had not exhausted state remedies. In this order, the court denied the reconsideration-related motions, granted an extension of time to appeal, and directed the clerk to provide Johnson with the order and docket sheet.