West v. Emig - Motion for Reconsideration in Habeas Corpus Case

IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRI CT COUR T FOR THE DI STRICT OF DEL AWARE CHRISTOPHER H. WE ST, P etitioner, v. BRIAN EMIG, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERA L OF THE STATE OF DELAWAR E, Respondents. 1))))))))))) C.A. No. 14-1513 (JLH) MEMORANDUM OR DER Pending before the Court is Petitioner Christopher H. W est’ s “Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6).” (D.I. 128.) Although thi s case has a prolonged procedural history (before three dif ferent district court judges), only the details necessary for resolving the instant Motion are provided. 2 In 2014, Petitioner filed a pro se federal habeas petit ion, which the Court dismissed as time barr ed. (D.I. 67; D.I. 68.) The Court denied Petitioner ’ s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. (D.I. 78.) On appeal, the Third Circuit remanded the case for a determination on whether equitable tolling was app ropriate. (D.I. 84.) On remand, Respondents waiv ed th e statute of limitations defen se. (D. I. 86.) The cas e was reo pened and aft er a dditional briefing, including clari ficati on of the claim s presen ted, the Court denied the habeas petition on March 21, 2022. (D.I. 106; D.I. 107.) The Third Circuit denied Petitioner ’ s subsequent application for a 1 T he caption has be en amended in acco rdanc e with direct ive num ber 3 of th is Ord er. 2 A more detailed history can be found in this Court’ s Memorandum Opinion (D.I. 121) denying Pe titioner ’ s pr ior motions for r econsid erati on. W est v. May, No. 14 -1513- JLH, 2024 W L 1050849, at *1 - 2 (D. Del. Mar. 1 1, 202 4), certificate of appealability denied sub nom. W est v. W ar den James T. V aughn Corr. Ctr., No. 24 - 161 1, 2024 WL 5500819 (3d Cir. Dec. 17, 2024).

2 certif icate of a ppealability. (D.I. 1 10.) Petitione r t hen filed a petition for rehear ing with the Third Circuit and a petition fo r a writ of certior ari in the Unite d States Supreme Court, both of wh ich were denied. See W es t v. May, 143 S. Ct. 1782 (A pr. 24, 2023); W est v. W ar den, James T V aughn C o r r. C t r., No. 22 - 1731, 2022 WL 15398960 (3d Cir. Sept. 23, 2022). Petitioner f iled two Motions for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), and the case was subsequently reassig ned to me. I dismissed the Rule 60(b) motions on M arch 1 1, 2024, f or lack of jur isdiction as unaut horized second or su ccessiv e habe as req uest s. (D. I. 121; D.I. 122.) The Third Circuit denied Pe titioner ’ s request for a certific ate of appeala bility. (D.I. 127.) Petitioner ’s pending Motion for R econsideration was placed in the prison mail on August 24, 2025. (D.I. 128 - 5 at 1.) In the Motion, Petitio ner assert s that he “adv ances n ow one main claim, that both his initial habea s review in 2022 and this Court’ s denial of his 60(b) in 2024 failed to review all his claims, that being the delay from the obstruction of his original petition in the summer of 2014, July 4 th, prejudiced [Petitioner ’ s] due process app ellate rights.” (D.I. 128 at 1.) As best the Court can tell, Petitioner ’ s ar gument seem s to be t hat the Court should not have permitted Respondents to waive the statute of limitations defens e becaus e th at waiver violated his right to demonstrate how the delay in re viewing his federal habeas petition prejudiced him. 3 (D.I. 128.) Petitioner seeks relief under Ru le 60(b)(6), which permits a court to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for “any other re ason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). 3 Although Petitioner says that he is raising on ly one claim, he asser ts that Respondents filed an incorrect housing log with the Court in 2021. The housing log relates to whether Petitio ner trie d to file a timely petition – an i ssue th at bec ame i rrel evant when Respondents waived the statute of limitations defense.

3 If Petitioner ’ s Rule 60(b) Motion “seeks to add a new ground for relief” or “ attack s the federal court ’ s pre vious resolution o f a cla im on the merits, ” the m otion is barred as an unauthorized second o r succes sive h abeas p etit ion. See Gonzalez v. Cr osby, 545 U.S. 524, 529 -32 (2005); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). But if Petitioner ’ s Rule 60(b) Motion “ att acks th e manne r in which the earlier habeas judgment was procured and not t he underlying conviction,” Petitioner ’ s Rule 60(b) motion “ may b e adjudi cated on the m erit s. ” Pridgen v. Shannon, 380 F.3d 721, 727 (3d Cir. 2004). In any event, the p ending Rule 60(b) Motion is time barred because it was not brought within a reasonable time. 4 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (requiring all Rule 60(b) motions be filed “within a reasonable time, ” and those brought under Rule 60(b)(1), (2) or (3) be filed within one year after entry of judgment or order or date of proceeding). Even if Petitioner ’ s Mot ion were timely, Rule 60(b)(6) has been interpreted narrowly as applying only in “extraordinary c ircumstances where, without such relief, an extreme and unexpected hardship would occur.” United States v. Doe, 810 F.3d 132, 152 (3d C ir. 2015) (quoting Cox v. Horn, 75 7 F.3d 1 13, 120 (3d Cir. 2014)). Su ch ext raordi nary circum stances “wil l rarely occur in the habe as context.” Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 535. Petitioner ar gues that the Court should not have permitted Respondents to w aive th e statute of limitations de fense. I disagree that allowing Respondents to waive the statute of limitations defe nse amount s to extraordinary circums tances. Cf. W ood v. Milyar d, 566 U.S. 463, 466 (2012) (recognizing prece dent that “court is not at liberty . . . to bypass, over ride, or excuse a State’ s deliberate waiver of a limitations 4 The pending Rule 60 (b) Mot ion was filed on or about August 24, 2025, ov er three years af ter hi s fed eral ha beas pet iti on was denied on March 21, 2022, and over one year and five months after his prior Rule 60(b) motions were dismissed. In his Rul e 60(b) Motion, Petitioner indicates that his mental hea lth, conditions of confinement and an incident on September 5, 2024 in which his legal work was damaged and discarded impacted his ability to file his claim. (D.I. 128 at 7.) The Court finds these circum stances insuffici ent to ex cuse the d elay.

4 defense ”) (citi ng Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 1 98, 202, 210 n.1 1 (2006)). Respondents’ waiv er had the s ame r esult as if Peti tioner h ad succ eeded in an adjudication on the merits of his e quitable tolling claim – the Court procee ded to review Petitioner ’ s federal habeas peti tion on its merits. NOW, THER EFORE, a t Wilmington, on this 27th day of F ebruar y, 2026, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner Christopher H. W est’ s “Motion for Reconsideration Pursu ant to Rule 60(b)(6) ” (D.I. 128) is DENIED. 2. T o the extent one is required, t he C ourt decl in es to is sue a certifi cat e of appealability because Petitioner has failed to sa tisfy the standards set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 3. The Cler k shall amend the case cap tion on t he docket by substituting W arden Brian Emig for fo rmer W ard en Rob ert May, an original party to the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). ______________________________ T he H onor a bl e J e nni f e r L. H a l l U n ite d S ta te s D is tr ic t J u d g e