United States District Court, District of Columbia
RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge
Darrell Lamont Bailey is a federal prisoner incarcerated at
the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. Dkt. 1
at 1. On March 30, 2018, he filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging
that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) is invalid
and that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction over his
case. Dkt. 1 at 2-3. This Court denied Bailey's petition
for lack of jurisdiction. Dkt. 2. This matter is now before
the Court on Bailey's motion for reconsideration under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Dkt. 4. Because Bailey
has failed to demonstrate that reconsideration is warranted
or that this Court has jurisdiction over his § 2255
petition, the Court will deny the motion and dismiss this
1990, Petitioner Darrell Lamont Bailey “was convicted
of bank robbery with a dangerous weapon, possession of a
firearm as a felon, and using a firearm during a crime of
violence.” United States v. Bailey, No. 94 C
6832, 1995 WL 302441, at *1 (N.D. Ill. 1995). He “was
sentenced to a thirty-five year prison term” by the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
and his “conviction was upheld on direct appeal.”
Id. at *1 (citing United States v. Bailey,
957 F.2d 439 (7th Cir. 1994)).
March 30, 2018, Bailey filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in this Court, claiming that “he was improperly
sentenced for having violated 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d)
because, in his view, that section requires that the
defendant have been convicted of violating both 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b),
yet he was convicted for a violation of only 18 U.S.C.
2113(a).” Dkt. 2 at 1. The Court dismissed the petition
because it was not filed “in the court that imposed the
sentence.” Id. (citing Day v. Trump,
860 F.3d 686, 691 (D.C. Cir. 2017)). Although district courts
can, if appropriate, transfer habeas petitions that have been
filed in the wrong district, the Court declined to do so in
Bailey's case because it would have “serve[d] no
purpose” given that “Bailey cannot file another
petition under § 2255 without appellate court
authorization.” Dkt. 2 at 2; see also 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h) (“A second or successive motion
must be certified . . . by a panel of the appropriate court
of appeals.”); Bailey, 1995 WL 302441, at *9
(denying Bailey's first habeas petition).
now moves for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b). Dkt. 4.
60(b) permits courts to relieve a plaintiff from “a
final judgment” for, among other reasons,
“mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,
” “newly discovered evidence, ”
“fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party, ” or “any other reason that
justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The party
seeking relief under Rule 60(b) “bears the burden of
showing that he or she is entitled to the relief, ”
United States v. Dynamic Visions, Inc., 321 F.R.D.
14, 17 (D.D.C. 2017), and “the decision to grant or
deny a [R]ule 60(b) motion is committed to the discretion of
the [d]istrict [c]ourt, ” United Mine Workers of
Am. 1974 Pension v. Pittston Co., 984 F.2d 469,
476 (D.C. Cir. 1993). A Rule 60(b) motion does not afford a
plaintiff “an opportunity to retry her case, ”
Greer v. Paulson, 505 F.3d 1306, 1317 (D.C. Cir.
2007), and relief under the catchall provision in Rule
60(b)(6) is warranted only in “extraordinary
circumstances, ” Cohen v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ.
of the District of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476, 485 (D.C.
Cir. 2016) (quoting Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788,
790 (D.C. Cir. 2007)).
motion for reconsideration is not easily parsed. He simply
lists various statutes, rules, and judicial decisions,
referring at times to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the
writ of coram nobis, and Rule 60(b). Dkt. 4 at 1, 5. He
appears to assert that he was sentenced to a term of 30
years' imprisonment, even though the relevant statutory
maximum was 25 years; he refers to the ineffective assistance
of counsel; and he refers to the suspension of writ of habeas
corpus. Id. Most notably, however, it appears that
he seeks the same relief he previously sought-release from
his term of incarceration. See id.; Bailey,
1995 WL 302441, at *1.
light of the above, the Court concludes that Bailey has not
satisfied the Rule 60(b) standard. He has not provided the
Court with “newly discovered evidence, ” evidence
of “fraud, ” or “any other reason that
justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Moreover, as the
Court's prior decision explained, 28 U.S.C. § 2255
authorizes prisoners “claiming the right to be
released” to move only “the court which
imposed the sentence” to correct or vacate a
sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (emphasis added). Because
this Court did not impose Bailey's sentence, it lacks
jurisdiction to entertain his petition. None of the cases
cited in Bailey's motion alter this fact.
Court will, accordingly, DENY Bailey's
motion for reconsideration, ...