Ronell L. Roberts v. Warden

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana denied Ronell L. Roberts’s second motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court held that the motion, which sought reconsideration of the dismissal of his untimely habeas petition based on equitable tolling, was governed by Rule 60(b)(1) or (2) and was filed more than one year after the judgment, making it untimely.

Holdings

1. Because Roberts's motion was most fairly characterized as arising under Rule 60(b)(1) or Rule 60(b)(2), it was subject to Rule 60(c)(1)'s one-year filing deadline.
2. The court lacked authority to extend the applicable Rule 60(b) deadline, and Roberts's motion, filed more than seven months late, had to be denied as untimely.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Roberts's second Rule 60(b) motion was subject to the one-year deadline applicable to motions under Rule 60(b)(1) or (2).
2. Whether the court could extend the Rule 60(b) deadline or grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6) despite the motion's untimeliness.

Disposition

dismissed