Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

m . ¤
{ Case 3:02-cv-02186-AVC Document 13 Fnled 01/12/2004 Page 1 of 2 (
( i
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR@?HH gig) I
( orsraicr or comwscricur '
. ZUUH JAN | 2 gn Lg, 5-I
Jorm P. waizsa ; ff}?..`i€j§§*I}£_2‘f:i` (jngm
: :·IJ_.{\i·
: PRISONER
V. : Case No. 3:O2cv2l86(AVC) I
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, ET AL. ; I
. (
RULING AND ORDER i
n On June 5, 2003, the court denied the petition for writ of A
habeas corpus without prejudice for failing to exhaust state -
court remedies. (See Doc. # 8.) Pending is the petitioner’s i
motion to reopen this case. For the reasons that follow, the
motion is denied. ;
A motion to reopen the case and vacate the judgment is
governed by Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., which provides that a
party may be relieved from judgment on the basis of: R
(I) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered ;
evidence which by due diligence could not
have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud
(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other !
misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the (
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 5
satisfied, released, or discharged, or a
prior judgment upon which it is based has
been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is
no longer equitable that the judgment should
have prospective application; or (6) any
other reason justifying relief from the
operation of the judgment.
Rule 60(b) also provides that "[t]he motion shall be made within I

1 { Case 3:02-cv-02186-AVC Document 13 Filed 01/12/2004 Page 2 of 2
( s
1 1
5 a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more 1
N than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was N
1 entered or taken." 1
The petitioner states that he has now exhausted his state N
court remedies as to the claim in his petition. The petitioner 1
states that he filed an appeal from the denial of his motion to 1
modify sentence in the Connecticut Superior Court and that a N
Superior Court Judge denied his application to appeal. The N
petitioner does not allege that he attempted to appeal the =
Superior Court’s denial of his notice of appeal to the N
Connecticut Appellate Court or the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Thus, his claim is still not exhausted. In addition, the l
previous denial of the petition filed in this case was without 1
prejudice to the re—fi1ing of a new petition, not the reopening 4
of this case. Because the denial of his federal habeas petition N
for failure to exhaust state court remedies was not erroneous, 1
the petitioner has not identified any reason warranting an order
vacating the dismissal and reopening the case. The petitioner's
Motion to Reopen [doc. #12] is DENIED. N
SO ORDERED this /27N day of January, 2004, at Hartford, 1
Connecticut. AAO D 69 L? y00 E
.,L UL Lz _ ;_n;r-*(_1 1,/ (,/**1}
United·States District Judge
1
1
2 1
1