Ralph Jones v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden ( 2018 )

Case: 17-30322 Document: 00514650933 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 17-30322 FILED
Summary Calendar September 20, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
RALPH JONES,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:97-CV-3852
Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Ralph Jones, Louisiana state prisoner # 294536, was convicted of first-
degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison. In 1998, his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 application challenging his conviction was denied as untimely. Some
17 years later, Jones filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion,
arguing that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year limitations
period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and sought to reopen his habeas proceedings
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 17-30322 Document: 00514650933 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2018
No. 17-30322
because his counsel at the time was laboring under a conflict of interest
stemming from a medical condition, which prevented counsel from timely filing
the § 2254 application. The district court determined that Jones’s Rule 60(b)
motion was not filed within a reasonable time after the dismissal of his § 2254
application but granted Jones a certificate of appealability to appeal the issue.
The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion on the basis that the motion was not
filed within a reasonable time is reviewed on appeal under the highly
deferential abuse of discretion standard. First RepublicBank Fort Worth v.
Norglass, Inc., 958 F.2d 117, 119 (5th Cir. 1992) (internal citation omitted).
“What constitutes a reasonable time under Rule 60(b) depends on the
particular facts of the case in question.” Id.
Although Jones insists that his Rule 60(b) motion was filed within a
reasonable time following the Supreme Court’s decision in Christeson v. Roper,
135 S. Ct. 891 (2015), the district court determined that Christeson was
inapposite, and we agree. On the facts of this case, we see no abuse of
discretion in the district court’s finding that the Rule 60(b) motion was not filed
within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2