Darrell Parks v. A. Jordan
670 F. App'x 748
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Darrell Parks, a federal inmate, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a disciplinary finding of "Engaging in a Sexual Act," alleging due process violations and that sanctions affected parole.
- The district court denied the § 2241 petition on the merits; this Court modified and affirmed by dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of habeas jurisdiction (noting parole-related claims that do not shorten confinement belong outside habeas).
- In May 2016 Parks moved to reopen under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) (newly discovered evidence) and 60(b)(6), citing a November 9, 2015 parole denial as new evidence and arguing the petition should have been treated as civil rights claims.
- The district court denied the motion as untimely under Rule 60(b)(2) and for failure to show extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6).
- Parks appealed; this Court reviewed for abuse of discretion and summarily affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rule 60(b)(2) motion | Parks: the Nov. 9, 2015 parole denial is newly discovered evidence justifying reopening | District Court: Rule 60(b)(2) requires filing within one year of judgment; Parks filed in May 2016 after Feb. 7, 2014 judgment | Motion under 60(b)(2) is time-barred; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether parole denial qualifies as 60(b)(2) relief on the merits | Parks: parole denial shows consequences of the disciplinary finding and supports relief | Court: parole impact does not convert the claim into cognizable habeas relief; parole decision rested on multiple infractions, not only the one challenged | Even if timely, the parole decision does not entitle Parks to 60(b) relief; prior opinion held parole-related effects insufficient for habeas |
| Rule 60(b)(6) claim that the petition should have been treated as civil rights claims | Parks: district court mischaracterized his § 2241; he raised retaliation, free speech, and a challenge to 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(f) and should be allowed relief | Court: 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances; mischaracterization or appellate errors are not extraordinary; Parks was told dismissal was without prejudice to a Bivens action | 60(b)(6) relief denied; no extraordinary circumstances shown; Parks may pursue civil rights action separately |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (parole-related claims that do not shorten confinement are generally not habeas claims)
- Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2008) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) abuse of discretion)
- Martinez-McBean v. Gov’t of V.I., 562 F.2d 908 (3d Cir. 1977) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief is limited to extraordinary circumstances)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognizing a damages action for constitutional violations by federal actors)