Stevens v. Miller
676 F.3d 62
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Edward Stevens was convicted of Robbery in the Third Degree in 2000 and sentenced as a persistent felony offender to 15 years to life.
- Stevens filed a federal habeas petition in 2005 challenging the PFO designation and sentence as unconstitutional under Apprendi and Blakely.
- A magistrate recommended denial in 2008; the district court later granted Stevens habeas relief in September 2010 after a Second Circuit en banc decision in Besser/Portalatin panel.
- The State failed to monitor the district court docket and did not inform the court when Portalatin overruled Besser, nor that en banc review was pending, and did not appeal timely.
- Portalatin overruled the Besser panel's holding, and Portalatin issued within the State’s window to appeal; the State later sought relief under Rule 60(b)(6) in October 2011.
- The district court denied the State’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion, concluding it was actually an untimely Rule 60(b)(1) motion and that 60(b)(6) relief was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief was warranted. | Stevens | State | Not warranted; motion resembled an untimely 60(b)(1) request. |
| Whether Portalatin’s change in law constitutes extraordinary circumstances. | Stevens | State | Portalatin did not create extraordinary circumstances given the State’s neglect. |
| Whether lack of notice and docket neglect excuse late relief. | Stevens | State | Neglect cannot justify 60(b)(6) relief; State failed to monitor docket. |
| Whether comity supports relief given evolving law. | Stevens | State | Comity concerns do not override the State’s neglect and delay. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying 60(b)(6). | Stevens | State | No abuse; district court acted within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1988) (extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary showings; timing matters)
- United States v. Cirami, 535 F.2d 736 (2d Cir. 1976) (60(b)(6) cannot substitute for an appeal; mutual exclusivity with 60(b)(1))
- Pioneer Investment Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (delay and neglect can bar Rule 60(b)(6) relief)
- Sargent v. Columbia Forest Prods., Inc., 75 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1996) (recall of mandate factors; not applicable due to neglect in this case)
- Portalatin v. Graham, 624 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2010) (en banc overruled Besser; change in law; lack of notice protected by diligence issues)
- Besser v. Walsh, 601 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2010) (initial panel holding that PFO scheme violated clearly established precedent; later overruled en banc)