In re: Stephen Aguiar

Summary

The Vermont Superior Court granted Stephen Aguiar’s motion to reconsider and reopened his voluntarily dismissed post-conviction relief action. Applying Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., the court concluded that extraordinary circumstances and the lack of prejudice to the State justified reopening the case. The court also permitted Aguiar to amend his petition and ordered a status conference.

Holdings

1. Rule 59(e) did not provide a basis for relief because the motion was filed more than twenty-eight days after the relevant dismissal.
2. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) constitutes a final proceeding for purposes of Rule 60(b), and a court may relieve a party from that dismissal and reopen the case when the requirements of Rule 60(b) are satisfied.
3. Rule 60(b)(6) relief was warranted because extraordinary circumstances made reopening necessary to prevent hardship or injustice.
4. Because the original dismissal was without prejudice and Vermont's PCR statute permits a prisoner to seek relief at any time, Aguiar remained entitled to file a new PCR action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should reconsider its 2024 denial of Aguiar's motion to reopen the voluntarily dismissed PCR action.
2. Whether a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) may be treated as a proceeding from which relief may be granted under Rule 60(b).
3. Whether the unusual circumstances, including lack of notice and the absence of tactical delay, justified reopening the case under Rule 60(b)(6).
4. Whether Aguiar was entitled to relief under Rule 59(e) despite filing more than twenty years after the dismissal.

Disposition

other