Moody v. Jakubow, No. 2:2009cv00118 - Document 39 (S.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 37 Motion. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 1/4/2018. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
Moody v. Jakubow Doc. 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS G. MOODY, Petitioner, Case No. 2:09-cv-118 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM Magistrate Judge King v. MICHAEL R. JAKUBOW, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner instituted this action for a writ of habeas corpus on January 22, 2009. Complaint (ECF No. 1).1 On May 11, 2009, the action was dismissed as time-barred under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Judgment (ECF No. 22). Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability was denied by this Court, Order (ECF No. 25), and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Moody v. Jakubow, No. 09-3746 (6th Cir. Nov. 18, 2009). The Court of Appeals also denied Petitioner’s subsequent request for leave to file a successive petition. In re: Thomas G. Moody, No. 09-4478 (6th Cir. June 28, 2010). On June 10, 2011, this Court denied Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 28). Order (ECF No. 32). On June 28, 2011, this Court denied Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 35). Order (ECF No. 36). This matter is now before the Court on Petitioner’s December 21, 2017, motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Instant Motion Pursuant: FRCP 60(b)(4): Sec. 13.16 (ECF No. 37) [sic] (“Motion for Relief from Judgment”). For the reasons that follow, the Motion for Relief from Judgment is DENIED. This Court construed the action as presenting a challenge to Petitioner’s state court criminal conviction, Order (ECF No. 7), and directed Petitioner to file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Id. On April 7, 2009, Petitioner filed the Petition (ECF No. 17). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes relief from a final judgment where “the judgment is void.” In the Motion for Relief from Judgment, Petitioner argues that his convictions as an aider and abettor to murder and felonious assault constitute plain error, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, and that his convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. He contends that the judgment against him is therefore illegal and void.2 Petitioner appears to seek reconsideration of the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition on this basis. As an initial matter, the Motion for Relief from Judgment is untimely. A motion under Rule 60(b)(4) must be filed “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Final judgment dismissing this action was entered on May 11, 2009, and yet Petitioner waited more than 8 years before filing the Motion for Relief from Judgment. See, e.g., Settle v. Bell, No. 06-1092-JDTegb, 2017 WL 1058365, at *2 (W.D. Tenn., March 20, 2017) (motion for reconsideration filed in habeas action more than six years after final judgment had been entered was not filed within a reasonable time). Moreover, Petitioner has offered no basis warranting relief from the dismissal of this action as time-barred and the record reflects no basis for concluding that the May 11, 2009, Judgment is void. Under these circumstances, Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 37) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: January 4, 2018 _______s/James L. Graham_______ JAMES L. GRAHAM United States District Judge Petitioner made similar arguments in his prior Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 28). 2 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.