Hattie Tanner v. Joan Yukins
776 F.3d 434
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Hattie Tanner was convicted of armed robbery and first-degree felony-murder in Michigan and sentenced to life without parole.
- Michigan appellate history: reversal for due-process issues, then Michigan Supreme Court reinstated the conviction in 2003.
- Federal habeas petition denied on merits in 2005; Tanner, pro se, faced a late notice of appeal due to prison guards blocking filing.
- Tanner’s notice of appeal was filed 31 days after the district court judgment, and was treated as untimely.
- Tanner later obtained a jury verdict in a § 1983 action against the guards for access-to-courts violation (2012), monetary damages awarded.
- Tanner moved in the habeas action under Rule 60(b)(6) to reinstate the judgment and restart the appeal clock; district court denied for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) can revive a lost appeal right despite Rule 4 time limits | Tanner argues district court may restore the denial of habeas relief and revive the appeal period due to constitutional violation | District court lacks power to alter mandatory appellate deadlines | Yes; district court has jurisdiction to grant Rule 60(b)(6) relief to revive the lost appeal right |
| Whether Bowles v. Russell bars relief under Rule 60(b)(6) for late filing | Bowles does not govern where unconstitutional state action caused late filing | Bowles makes time limits jurisdictional and cannot be equitably modified | No; Bowles does not control when delays are caused by state-created access-to-courts violations |
| Whether Lewis v. Alexander remains controlling after Bowles | Lewis allows Rule 60(b) relief to revive a lost right of appeal | Lewis was superseded by Bowles for deadline discipline | Yes; Lewis remains binding in this context, permitting Rule 60(b)(6) relief |
| Whether extraordinary circumstances existed to justify Rule 60(b)(6) relief | Unconstitutional prison conduct prevented timely filing, constituting extraordinary circumstances | Excuse requires extraordinary circumstances beyond mere illiteracy or access issues; not shown here for extension | Yes; extraordinary circumstances were present, and district court abused by denying relief on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (Supreme Court 2007) (time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional)
- Lewis v. Alexander, 987 F.2d 392 (6th Cir.1993) (Rule 60(b) to revive lost right of appeal; district court may proceed in aid of appeal)
- Perez v. Stephens, 745 F.3d 174 (5th Cir.2014) (Bowles-prevalent rule; distinguishing notice problems from other conduct)
- Brown v. United States, 2011 WL 3555630 (6th Cir.2011) (unpublished; not precedential; discusses Rule 60(b) context)
- FHC Equities, L.L.C. v. MBL Life Assurance Corp., 188 F.3d 678 (6th Cir.1999) (misinterpretation of rules as 'mistake' under Rule 60(b) not sufficient for relief)
- Zimmer St. Louis, Inc. v. Zimmer Co., 32 F.3d 357 (8th Cir.1994) (distinguishes notice-based versus non-notice Rule 60(b)(6) relief)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (Supreme Court 2005) (Rule 60(b) and respect for finality; exceptional circumstances standard)
- Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Trustees of UMWA Combined Benefit Fund, 249 F.3d 519 (6th Cir.2001) (exceptional circumstances balancing in Rule 60(b) context)
- Olle v. Henry Wright Corp., 910 F.2d 357 (6th Cir.1990) (exceptional circumstances for Rule 60(b) relief; intensive balancing required)
- Randleman v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 646 F.3d 347 (6th Cir.2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard; factors for Rule 60(b) relief)