Faulkner v. United States

• Court: District Court, E.D. Virginia
• Decided: May 10, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00073
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

INT HEU NITSETDA TDEISS TRCIOCUTR T FORT HEE ASTEDRINS TROIFCV TI RGINIA RichmoDnidv ision BENJAMFIANU LKNER, CivAicltN ioo3.n: 22CV73 v. UNITSETDA TOEFSA MERICA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION BenjamFianu lakfe ndeerrp,ar li spornoecrep erdsoie fin,lg ea dM otitooRn e turn Prop(eErCNtyFo,2 . )p ,u rstuFoae ndteR rualolefC r imPirnoacl4e ldu(srgee)e ,kt ihrneeg turn proptehwraattfosy r feaipsta eordhft i c sr imcianisatnelh U en iStteadDt iessfotr rit chMtei ddle DistorfTi ecntn eBsysM eeem.o raOnpdiunamin oOdnr deenrt eornOe cdt o3b,2e 0r2t 2h,e Coudretnt iheMedo ttiRooe nturn P ropaensrdtty a ted: ThCeo uprrto pdeernlaimy eo st foiror ne turno fp ropietfrh dtyee fenldaacnkts entittl"oel maewfupnolts seosfts hsieeo inpz reodp tehprert oyp,ie csro tnytr aband ors ubtjoefo crtf eiotrtu hrgeeo [v,e]rnm ennetefo'drts h per opaeser vtiyd ence contiUnnuieStste.ad"vt .Re usd i3s5iF8l. Al p,p 4'2x14 ,2( 14 Ctih2r 0.0 9) (quoUtniinStgte advt .Ve asCn a uwenb9e3Fr4.g 21hd0e 4,18 0,6 0(-96Cth1i r. 1991U)n)i;St teadvt .Ve asn h2o9rF6n. ,37 d1 37,1( 98 Ctih2r 0.0 (2q)u oting UniStteadvtM .ei sl9 l9Fs1., 62 0d69 1,(2 9 Ctih1r 9.9 3)). Hertehr,ee ceosrtda btlhFiaastuh lelksan clekarsw e fnutli ttlo[et mheen]t retournfth ep ropheesr etye TkhsCe.o nsPernetl iOmridnoeafFrry o rfaeintdur e thoet hdeorc umfreonmtt hTsee nneDsissetrCeio cudtre tm ontshtFaratau tlek ner forfeithteep dr opheesr etye hkesrt oeth eU niStteadt Beesc.at uhsUeeni ted Stasteeistz hpeerd o paenridwtt ay fos r fetitoth eed USntiaFttaeeudsl ,lk ancekrs lawfueln tittltoeh pmere onptae nrhdtyec , a nanvoahtii lm oseRful 4lf(e1 g r)e lief. UniStteadvt .Se osz 5a9,F9 .A pp6'9x7, 0( 4Ctih2r 0.1 (5c)i tation omitt Rudi3s5iF8l.A l p,pa '4tx2 (1c iVtaiCnna gu wenb9e3Fr4.g a2ht1de 0 ,6 0-61); UniStteadvtF .ei st 8z0Fe .n33,8d 37 8,(9 9 Cthi 1r9.9 (6"i)Is t weltlh-tashtee t tled fedgeorvaelrnm meandyte faeR autl4 e(1 [ gm]o)t biyod ne monstthrtaahtte i ng propiessru tyb tjfoee cdtfoe rrfeailt (cu irteoa.mt"ii)to tne d). Faulrkenseprto hnhadects an u tiRluil4zele (t goo) b ttahrieen turn o fh is propbeertyc atuhsewere erd ee fietnch tfoesr feiptruorcee [eitdnhiT]ene gn nessee DistrCiocutr( tE.CN Fo 1.6 .T)h iasr gufamielnFsta. u lkpnreorpw'easrs t y subjteocc rti mfoirnfaeliA t "u[rce].rfo irmfieniiasptl au orrftea d efendant's senteUnncieSt,te"adv t .Me asr t6i6Fn2., 33 d0 130,(6 4 Ctih2r 0.1 (1c)i tation omitted), and thus, can only be challenged on direct appeal, or the challenge is waived, see Young v. United States, 489 F.3d 313, 315 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the motion for return of property, (ECF No. 2), will be DENIED. The action will be DISMISSED. Faulkner v. United States, No. 3:22CV73, 2022 WL 4856159, at *2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 2022) (all alterations, except for second alteration, in original). On December 19, 2022, Faulkner filed a Motion to Reconsider. Accordingly, the Court will consider the motion as one seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See MLCAuto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277-78 (4th Cir. 2008) (stating that filings made within twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment are construed as Rule 59(e) motions (citing Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978))); In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 2-3 (4th Cir. 1992) (concluding post-judgment motion filed outside the period for filing a Rule 59(e) should be considered a Rule 60(b) Motion). “fR]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). A party seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) must make a threshold showing of “timeliness, a meritorious [claim or] defense, a lack of unfair prejudice to the opposing party, and exceptional circumstances.” Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting Werner v. Carbo, 731 F.2d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 1984)). After a party satisfies this threshold showing, “he [or she] then must satisfy one of the six specific sections of Rule 60(b).” Jd. (citing Werner, 731 F.2d at 207). Furthermore, a litigant cannot use Rule 60(b) simply to request “reconsideration of legal issues already addressed in an earlier ruling.” CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Constr. Co., 57 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 313 (4th Cir. 1982)).

In his Motion for Reconsideration, Faulkner fails to demonstrate that he has a meritorious claim or that exceptional circumstances warrant consideration of his Rule 60(b) Motion. Dowell, 993 F.2d at 48. Further, as noted above, a party cannot utilize Rule 60(b) to request “reconsideration of legal issues already addressed in an earlier ruling.” CNF Constructors, Inc., 57 F.3d at 401 (citing Williams, 674 F.2d at 313); Lee X v. Casey, 771 F. Supp. 725, 728 (E.D. Va. 1991) (“A Rule 60(b) motion is not authorized when it is nothing more than a request for the district court to change its mind.” (citing Williams, 674 F.2d at 313)). Lastly, to the extent that relief is sought under Rule 60(b)(1) for a mistake of law, Faulkner fails to demonstrate that the Court made any such mistake. Hill v. McDermott, Inc., 827 F.2d 1040, 1043 (Sth Cir. 1987) (explaining that relief is available for an “obvious error of law, apparent on the record,” such as a decision that “conflicts with a clear statutory mandate” or “involves a fundamental misconception of the law” (citations omitted)). | Accordingly, Faulkner’s Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 19), will be DENIED. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: [D No Lo Z? iain Sua ‘trick Judge Richmond, Virginia