Cowan V United States

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Shawn Ryan Cowan filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging unconstitutional restraint on his parental rights regarding his minor child. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because Cowan was not in custody and was not challenging a federal judgment of conviction. Cowan subsequently sought reconsideration of the dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and 60(d)(3), but the court denied the motion because he failed to demonstrate newly discovered evidence, clear error, or fraud on the court. A certificate of appealability was also denied, and the matter was closed.

Issues

  • The court needed to determine whether a certificate of appealability should be issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) and Rule 11(a) of the Rules governing § 2254 Proceedings. The standard requires a substantial showing that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of the constitutional claims, or that the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
  • The court needed to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear Shawn Ryan Cowan's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court also needed to decide whether to grant reconsideration under Rule 60(b) or Rule 60(d)(3), considering that Cowan was not in custody and was not challenging a federal judgment of conviction, and whether his claims were legally frivolous or failed to state a basis for relief.

Holdings

  • The court denied Cowan's motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) and Rule 60(d)(3) because he failed to demonstrate newly discovered evidence, clear error, or fraud on the court. The court also denied the certificate of appealability as reasonable jurists would not disagree with the district court's resolution of the constitutional claims.
  • The court determined that Cowan's motion for reconsideration fails because he renews arguments already made and has not provided one of the permissible grounds to support his reconsideration request under Rule 60. The matter is closed with direction to the Clerk not to accept any further filings except a Notice of Appeal.

Remedies

  • Cowan's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 4) is DENIED.
  • This matter is CLOSED. Aside from a Notice of Appeal, the Clerk of Court is directed not to accept any further filings in this matter.
  • A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

Legal Principles

The court applied Rule 60(b) and Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allow relief from judgments only in narrow circumstances including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud on the court, or other reasons justifying relief. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly, granted only when the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or there is an intervening change in controlling law. The court also applied the standard for issuing a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) and Rule 11(a), requiring a substantial showing that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of constitutional claims.

Precedent Name

  • Payton v. Davis
  • United States v. Winkles
  • 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold
  • Alexander v. Robertson
  • Slack v. McDaniel
  • Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson Tool Co.
  • Latshaw v. Rainer Wortham & Co., Inc.
  • Miller-El v. Cockrell
  • Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation
  • Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop

Cited Statute

  • Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
  • 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  • 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
  • Rule 59(b)
  • Rule 60(d)(3)
  • 28 U.S.C. § 2255
  • Rule 11(a), Rules governing § 2254 Proceedings

Judge Name

Dana L. Christensen

Passage Text

  • 1. Cowan's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 4) is DENIED. 2. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. 3. This matter is CLOSED.
  • Cowan's motion is not based upon newly discovered evidence, there has been no change in controlling law, and Cowan has not demonstrated this Court committed clear error. Thus, he is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b).
  • The Court determined that because Cowan was not in custody and/or challenging a federal judgment of conviction, he could not proceed under § 2255 and that this Court was without jurisdiction to consider his claims.