81 F. Supp. 3d 280
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- In 1997 Wright was indicted (Indictment 103/97) and convicted of second-degree burglary; sentenced to 20 years-to-life and state appeals failed.
- Wright filed a federal habeas petition (28 U.S.C. § 2254) in 2002; Magistrate Judge Fox recommended denial in 2007 and the District Court adopted that R&R in a September 28, 2012 Order.
- Wright also filed a Rule 6 discovery motion seeking grand jury materials, a felony complaint, and related records to support his claim that two indictments existed and that his indictment/arraignment were defective.
- Wright appealed; the Second Circuit dismissed his appeal for failure to make a substantial showing of a constitutional right (mandate issued July 2013).
- Wright then filed a Rule 60 motion (March 4, 2014) arguing the District Court erred by deciding the habeas petition without ruling on his discovery motion and asking the Order be vacated; he also invoked Rule 60(d) theories (independent action and fraud on the court).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / law-of-the-case effect of Second Circuit mandate | Wright says the District Court should vacate its Order because it never decided his pending discovery motion | Respondent (and Court) contend Wright raised that issue on appeal and the Second Circuit’s dismissal/mandate bars relitigation | Court lacked jurisdiction under law-of-the-case/mandate doctrine to grant relief on the identical ground; Rule 60 motion dismissed on jurisdictional grounds |
| Entitlement to discovery in habeas | Wright contends discovery would show irregularities (two indictments) and would alter the record | Court: habeas discovery requires good cause and specific allegations; state record and findings refute Wright’s two‑indictment theory | Court held Wright failed to show good cause or any factual basis; discovery was not warranted |
| Proper Rule 60 subsection and timeliness | Wright invokes Rule 60(b)(6) to avoid Rule 60(b)(1)’s one‑year limit, claiming the Court made a legal mistake | Court: mistake of law/fact is properly raised under Rule 60(b)(1); 60(b)(1) requires timeliness (within appeal period/one year) | Motion construed as 60(b)(1) and was untimely (filed >17 months after Order and well beyond appeal period); dismissed |
| Rule 60(d) independent action / fraud on the court | Wright seeks equity relief and/or relief for fraud on the court because the Court failed to rule on discovery | Court: independent action requires no adequate remedy, lack of movant’s fault, and a grave miscarriage of justice; fraud on the court requires clear and convincing proof | Wright had other remedies (appeal, timely Rule 60(b)); no grave miscarriage shown and no evidence of fraud; Rule 60(d) claims denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. United States, 367 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2004) (Rule 60 relief in habeas must attack the integrity of the habeas proceeding, not the conviction)
- Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997) (habeas petitioners are not entitled to discovery as a matter of course; Rule 6 requires specific allegations to show good cause)
- Standard Oil Co. of Calif. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17 (1976) (an appellate mandate does not preclude district court relief based on events occurring after the mandate)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief in habeas context is available only in extraordinary circumstances)