United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
SECTION
“R”
ORDER AND REASONS
SARAH
S. VANCE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before
the Court is Anthony Ellis's motion seeking relief from
the Court's judgment denying his motion to vacate his
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.[1] The Court denies the motion
because Ellis's alleged lack of notice of the Court's
judgment does not entitle him to relief.
I.
BACKGROUND
On
April 20, 2015, defendant Anthony Ellis pleaded guilty to
transportation of an individual for purposes of engaging in
prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421, and
conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1591(a).[2] In his plea agreement, Ellis
waived his right to appeal and collaterally challenge his
conviction and sentence, but he retained the right to raise a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in an appropriate
proceeding.[3] The Court accepted the plea agreement and
sentenced Ellis to 60 months imprisonment as to the
conspiracy charge, and 120 months imprisonment as to the
charge under Section 2121, to be served
consecutively.[4]
On
September 23, 2016, Ellis filed a motion to vacate his
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.[5] The Court denied the motion
on February 21, 2018.[6] Ellis has now filed a motion for relief
from the judgment alleging that he did not receive notice of
the Court's denial of his Section 2255
motion.[7]The government opposes the
motion.[8]
II.
DISCUSSION
Ellis
contends that his lack of notice of the Court's judgment
entitles him to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(d)(1).[9] Rule 60(d)(1) provides that a court may
“entertain an independent action to relieve a party
from a judgment, order, or proceeding.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(d)(1). For relief under this Rule, Ellis must show
“fraud, accident, or mistake which prevented the
defendant in the judgment from obtaining the benefit of his
defense.” Johnson v. Davis, 746 Fed.Appx. 375,
380 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Addington v. Farmer's
Elevator Mut. Ins. Co., 650 F.2d 663, 668 (5th Cir. Unit
A July 1981)). Ellis states that he was not notified of the
Court's judgment due to accident or mistake. He does not
explain how his lack of notice prevented him from obtaining
the benefit of his defense, nor does he specify the relief he
seeks.
To the
extent that Ellis seeks relief from the order itself, there
is no basis for this under Rule 60(d)(1) or any other
provision of law. If Ellis is asking the Court to extend or
reopen his appeal period because his lack of notice prevented
him from filing a timely appeal or a timely motion for
reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), this relief is not
available either. The Fifth Circuit has held on multiple
occasions that a defendant who was not notified of a
court's judgment may not receive extra time to appeal the
judgment. See United States v. Awalt, 728 F.2d 704,
705 (5th Cir. 1984) (“Lack of notice is not a basis for
a plea of excusable neglect and does not excuse noncompliance
with Rule 4(b).”); United States v. Green, 348
Fed.Appx. 917, 918 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that petitioner
who did not receive notice of a judgment could not obtain
relief on the basis of a motion under Rule 60(b) that was
filed more than one year after the judgment). This is because
“the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil
case is a jurisdictional requirement and courts have no
authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional
requirements.” Id. at 918 (quoting Bowles
v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (alterations
omitted)). Ellis therefore has no right to relief from the
judgment itself, and he is also not entitled to an additional
opportunity to respond to or appeal the judgment.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the
foregoing reasons, Ellis motion for relief from judgment is
DENIED.
---------
Notes:
[1] R. Doc. 499.