United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
William W. Caldwell United States District Judge
before the court is defendant Corey Golson, Sr.'s motion
(Doc. 119) for reconsideration of this court's previous
denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a final
judgment in his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings.
Defendant has also moved (Doc. 120) to amend his initial
§ 2255 motion, which has already been adjudicated on the
merits. For the following reasons, Defendant's motions
will be denied.
September 7, 2012, Defendant entered a conditional guilty
plea to a three-count indictment, reserving the right to
appeal a previous denial of his suppression motion. (Doc.
82). On January 24, 2013, this court sentenced Defendant to a
term of 161 months' imprisonment and three years of
supervised release. (Doc. 88). Shortly thereafter, he filed a
notice of appeal. (Docs. 89, 96). On February 11, 2014, the
Third Circuit affirmed this court's denial of
Defendant's suppression motion. (Docs. 105, 106).
Defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari to the
Supreme Court of the United States was denied on June 23,
2014. United States v. Golson, 743 F.3d 44 (3d
Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 2857 (2014) (mem.).
16, 2015, Defendant timely filed a motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
(Doc. 107). The 2255 motion raised four claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel. (Doc. 107 at 4-9). On June 30, 2015,
the court issued a standard Miller
notice to Defendant, informing him of the
importance of including all claims for relief in his initial
2255 motion. (Doc. 109). Defendant was given thirty days to
respond to the notice. (Id. at 3). On September 28,
2015, after waiting approximately three months and having
received no response from Defendant, the court decided
Defendant's 2255 motion as originally filed. (Doc. 110 at
2). The court addressed the merits of each claim, and denied
relief. (Doc. 110 at 4-11; Doc. 111). A certificate of
appealability was also denied. (Doc. 110 at 11; Doc. 111).
then timely sought a certificate of appealability from the
Third Circuit. (Doc. 112). On July 15, 2016, the Third
Circuit denied Defendant's request for a certificate of
appealability, (Doc. 114), and several months later denied
his petition for a rehearing, United States v.
Golson, No. 15-3580 (3d Cir. Sept. 12, 2016), ECF No.
March 8, 2017, nearly six months after the Third Circuit
denied Defendant's petition for a rehearing, Defendant
filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) in
this court, seeking relief from the denial of his 2255
motion. (Doc. 115). On April 12, 2017, this court denied the
motion, finding that Defendant did not qualify for relief
from a final judgment under Rule 60(b). (Docs. 117, 118).
has now moved for reconsideration and to amend. In his motion
for reconsideration, which appears to incorporate his motion
to amend by way of the relief he seeks, he argues that this
court abused its discretion when it denied his Rule 60(b)
motion. (Doc. 119 at 2). He first claims that the court was
required, by the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, to
order the Government to respond to his 2255 motion before
denying it. (Id. at 3). He also argues that it was
“Manifest Injustice” that the court did not
“assure itself” that Defendant had received the
June 30, 2015 Miller notice before deciding
Defendant's 2255 motion. (Id. at 5, 6). Finally,
he claims that the statute of limitations could have been
tolled to allow him to “file all the legal
papers” related to his initial 2255 motion, or that he
could have been permitted to amend his 2255 motion pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). (Id. at
these reasons, Defendant asserts that the court should
reconsider its denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. He further
contends that upon reconsideration, the court should vacate
the denial of his 2255 motion and allow him to submit
supporting legal arguments and documentation regarding the
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims he initially raised
in the 2255 motion. The court will address each of
Defendant's claims in turn, and will also address his
related motion to amend.
seeking reconsideration of a final order, i.e., to
alter or amend judgment, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e), the movant must show (1) an intervening
change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new
evidence that was not available when the court issued the
underlying order, or (3) “the need to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.”
See Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-
Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.
1999) (citation omitted). Only the third basis for granting
reconsideration is potentially implicated here, but none of
Defendant's claims in his motion for reconsideration
satisfies this standard.
first claims that the court was required to order the
Government to respond to his 2255 motion before it denied the
motion. Defendant is mistaken. As previously explained in
this court's September 28, 2015 opinion, (see
Doc. 110 at 3), under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, 28
U.S.C. foll. § 2255, the district court may dismiss a
2255 motion “[i]f it plainly appears from the motion,
any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings
that the moving party is not entitled to relief[.]” 28
U.S.C. foll. § 2255 Rule 4(b); United States v.
Nahodil, 36 F.3d 323, 325 (3d Cir. 1994); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). After review of
Defendant's 2255 motion and the record, the court
determined that it was clear that he was not entitled to
relief, and properly denied his motion without requiring a
response from the Government.
second claim is that he never received the June 30, 2015
Miller notice, and the court erred by not
“assur[ing] itself” that he had received the
notice prior to reviewing and denying his 2255 motion as