Baker v. Mr. Beale, No. 3:2017cv00657 - Document 53 (E.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 05/30/2019. Copy mailed to Baker.(tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Baker v. Mr. Beale Doc. 53 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ALTERIK JAMES BAKER, Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:17CV657-HEH MR.BEALE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Denying Petitioner's Rule 60(b) Motion) Alterik James Baker, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. 1)' challenging his convictions oftwo counts ofrape in the Circuit Court ofPrince Edward County, Virginia("Circuit Court"). By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on August 1,2018, the Court denied the § 2254 Petition and dismissed the action. (ECF Nos. 37, 38.) Baker appealed. (ECF No. 40.) On March 14,2019,the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Baker's appeal. (ECF No.47.) On March 29,2019,Baker filed his Motion for Relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)("Rule 60(b) Motion," ECF No. 49.)^ As pertinent here, in his § 2254 Petition, Baker demanded relief upon the following grounds: 'The Coiirt corrects the capitalization and spelling in the quotations from Baker's submissions. The Court employs the pagination assigned to Baker's submissions by the CM/ECF docketing system. Baker submitted another copy of his Rule 60(b) Motion on May 10,2019. (ECF No. 52.) Dockets.Justia.com Claim 1 Claim 3 The evidence was insufficient to support Petitioner's two convictions ofrape. (ECF No, 1, at 5.) Petitioner failed to receive the effective assistance of counsel during the trial when: (e)Counsel failed to argue his motion to strike at the end ofthe prosecution's case. {Id. at 4-5.) Claim 4 Petitioner failed to receive the effective assistance of counsel at the end ofthe guilt phase and after the guilt phase when: (a) Counsel failed to renew his motion to strike at the end ofthe defense's case. {Id. at 5). The Court found that Baker had defaulted Claim 1. (ECF No. 37, at 11.) Baker asserted the ineffective assistance of counsel constituted cause to excuse his default of Claim 1. {Id.) The Court rejected that contention because Baker could not demonstrate he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to properly raise and preserve a challenge to the sufficiency ofthe evidence. {Id. at 13.) Relatedly, the Court concluded that Baker failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to renew his motion to strike and dismissed Claims 3(e) and 4(a). {Id.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)allows a court to "relieve a party ... from a finaljudgment, order, or proceeding." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). It is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of exceptional circumstances. Mayfield v. Nat'I Ass'nfor Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 61A F.3d 369, 378(4th Cir. 2012){citing Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193,202(1950)). The party seeking relief under Rule 60(b) "must make a threshold showing oftimeliness,'a meritorious claim or defense,' and lack of unfair prejudice to the opposing party ...." Coleman v. Jabe,633 F. App'x 119, 120 (4th Cir. 2016)(quoting Aikens v. Ingram,652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011)). A party must also demonstrate "exceptional circumstances." Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co.,993 F.2d 46,48(4th Cir. 1993)(quoting Werner v. Carbo,731 F.2d 204, 2 207(4th Cir. 1984)). After a party satisfies this threshold showing,"he [or she] then must satisfy one ofthe six specific sections of Rule 60(b)." Id.(quoting Werner, 731 F.2d at 207). Here, Baker seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(6), hence, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1), he was required to file his motion within a reasonable time after the entry ofthe August 1, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) ("A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1),(2), and(3)no more than a year after the entry ofthejudgment or order or the date of the proceeding."). Baker's Rule 60(b)(6) Motion, filed more than six months after the entry ofthe challenged judgment, was not filed in a reasonable time. See McLawhorn v. John W. Daniel & Co., Inc., 924 F.2d 535, 538(4th Cir. 1991)("We have held on several occasions that a Rule 60(b) motion is not timely brought when it is made three to four months after the originaljudgment and no valid reason is given for the delay."(citing Cent. Operating Co. v. Util. Workers ofAm.,491 F.2d 245 (4th Cir. 1974); Consol. Masonry & Fireproqfing, Inc. v. Wagman Constr. Corp., 383 F.2d 249(4th Cir. 1967))). Moreover, for the reasons set forth in the August 1,2018 Memorandum Opinion, Baker fails to demonstrate he has a meritorious claim. Accordingly, Baker's Rule 60(b) Motion (ECF Nos. 49, 52)will be denied. The Court will deny a certificate of appealability. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. M HENRY E. HUDSON Date: Richmond, Virginia SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
