WILLIAM DITTER, Jr., District Judge.
Presently before me is a pro se motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion filed by Milton DeJesus-Bones. DeJesus-Bones, who is currently incarcerated at the Allenwood Federal Correctional Institution in White Deer, Pennsylvania, seeks relief from judgment by challenging the "correctness of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255" motion. For the reasons that follow, DeJesus-Bones' motion will be denied.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Forty-four years ago, in 1979, DeJesus-Bones pled guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute a controlled substance as well as unlawful carrying of a firearm during the commission of a felony. According to the docket, over the next forty-two years, DeJesus-Bones did not challenge his conviction or sentence. In the past two years, however, DeJesus-Bones has filed two pro se petitions for a writ of coram nobis arguing that he suffers "continuing consequences" from his allegedly constitutionally invalid conviction. I denied both petitions as meritless.
In the instant Rule 60(b) motion, DeJesus-Bones asserts that the denial of his § 2255 motion should be vacated because: (1) his motion was not afforded "liberal construction" and (2) he was not given an evidentiary hearing.
DeJesus-Bones is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). In the absence of a more specific claim, I construe DeJesus-Bones' motion as one brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), a catch-all provision that allows a district court to vacate a prior judgment for "any other reason that justifies relief." To bring a motion within the "other reason" language of Rule 60(b)(6), a petitioner must allege "extraordinary circumstances" suggesting that the petitioner is faultless in any delayed filing. Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993).
DeJesus-Bones has not provided any information concerning the date his § 2255 motion was filed or the claims presented in the motion. The court's paper docket does not show that a § 2255 motion was ever filed in this case. Moreover, a circuit-wide electronic docket search was unavailing. As a result, his Rule 60(b) motion must be dismissed because there is no "prior judgment" to vacate.
If DeJesus-Bones is characterizing one of his previously filed petitions for coram nobis as a § 2255 motion, this argument is also meritless. Rather than setting forth any specific constitutional claims which would provide a basis for relief, DeJesus-Bones generally refers to my failure to afford his claims "liberal construction" and to grant him an evidentiary hearing. Such vague claims do not provide the basis for re-opening a prior judgment. In any event, he has also failed to set forth any evidence of extraordinary circumstances which would justify revisiting his conviction or sentence. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, ...