Villarreal v. Davis

S.D. Texas

Villarreal v. Davis

DecidedMay 23, 2022

Docket4:19-cv-00650

StatusUnknown

This text of Villarreal v. Davis (Villarreal v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Villarreal v. Davis, (S.D. Tex. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 23, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

JOSE MANUEL VILLARREAL, § TDCJ # 01976024, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-0650 § LORIE DAVIS, § § Respondent. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On March 30, 2020, the Court denied the habeas petition filed by state inmate Jose Manuel Villarreal (Dkt. 14; Dkt. 15). Villarreal appealed. On July 23, 2021, the appellate court denied Villarreal a certificate of appealability (Dkt. 35). On May 5, 2022, Villarreal filed a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) (Dkt. 36). Rule 60(b)(1) permits a court to relieve a party from a final judgment in the case of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Rule 60(b) is an uncommon means for relief, and “final judgments should not be lightly reopened.” Lowry Dev., L.L.C. v. Groves & Associates Ins., Inc., 690 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). A motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) “must be made . . . no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding” being challenged. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1) (emphasis added). 1 / 2 In this case, Villarreal seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(1) and argues that the Court erred when determining that two of his habeas claims were waived by his guilty plea (Dkt. 36, at 2). Because Villarreal filed his motion more than two years after the judgment he challenges, relief under Rule 60(b)(1) is not available. See FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1). Even if the Court were to consider his motion under Rule 60(b)(6), he makes no showing that his motion was made “within a reasonable time” or of any good cause for the delay. See In re Edwards, 865 F.3d 197, 208 (5th Cir. 2017); Smith v. Kukua, 487 F. App’x 145, 146 (5th Cir. 2012). Villarreal’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) (Dkt. 36) therefore is DENIED. The Clerk will provide a copy of this order to the parties. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on May 23 , 2022.

GEORGE C. HANKS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 23, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

JOSE MANUEL VILLARREAL, § TDCJ # 01976024, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-0650 § LORIE DAVIS, § § Respondent. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On March 30, 2020, the Court denied the habeas petition filed by state inmate Jose Manuel Villarreal (Dkt. 14; Dkt. 15). Villarreal appealed. On July 23, 2021, the appellate court denied Villarreal a certificate of appealability (Dkt. 35). On May 5, 2022, Villarreal filed a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) (Dkt. 36). Rule 60(b)(1) permits a court to relieve a party from a final judgment in the case of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Rule 60(b) is an uncommon means for relief, and “final judgments should not be lightly reopened.” Lowry Dev., L.L.C. v. Groves & Associates Ins., Inc., 690 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). A motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) “must be made . . . no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding” being challenged. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1) (emphasis added). 1 / 2 In this case, Villarreal seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(1) and argues that the Court erred when determining that two of his habeas claims were waived by his guilty plea (Dkt. 36, at 2). Because Villarreal filed his motion more than two years after the judgment he challenges, relief under Rule 60(b)(1) is not available. See FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1). Even if the Court were to consider his motion under Rule 60(b)(6), he makes no showing that his motion was made “within a reasonable time” or of any good cause for the delay. See In re Edwards, 865 F.3d 197, 208 (5th Cir. 2017); Smith v. Kukua, 487 F. App’x 145, 146 (5th Cir. 2012). Villarreal’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) (Dkt. 36) therefore is DENIED. The Clerk will provide a copy of this order to the parties. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on May 23 , 2022.

GEORGE C. HANKS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Villarreal v. Davis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villarreal-v-davis-txsd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack