Nicholas Queen v. T. Outlaw, No. 15-41338 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-41338 Document: 00513634787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-41338 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 12, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk NICHOLAS J. QUEEN, Petitioner-Appellant v. T.C. OUTLAW, WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:07-CV-21 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Nicholas J. Queen, federal prisoner # 29623-037, is serving a 562-month term of imprisonment for his convictions for bank robbery and related offenses. In 2007, Queen filed an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the calculation of his sentence. This court affirmed the judgment of the district court. Queen v. Outlaw, 393 F. App’x 176, 177-78 (5th Cir. 2010). In September and October 2014, Queen filed three identical motions pursuant to Federal Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-41338 Document: 00513634787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2016 No. 15-41338 Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) seeking relief from the judgment denying his § 2241 petition. The district court denied the motions on the grounds that it had no authority to reconsider this court’s decision affirming the denial of § 2241 relief, the motions were not timely, and they lacked merit. Queen now appeals the denial of his Rule 60(b) motions. Under Rule 60(b)(6), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment for “any . . . reason that justifies relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6). We review the denial of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion for an abuse of discretion. Diaz v. Stephens, 731 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2013). Although the one-year filing period does not apply to Rule 60(b)(6) motions, such motions “must be made within a reasonable time.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1). Queen did not meet this standard. See In re Osborne, 379 F.3d 277, 283 (5th Cir. 2004). Moreover, Queen has not shown the existence of “extraordinary circumstances,” as required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). AFFIRMED. 2

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.