Dennis McKnight v. Tom Felker

MEMORANDUM

In 2005, Dennis McKnight filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. On July 5, 2006, the district court dismissed McKnight’s petition without prejudice because it contained both unexhausted and exhausted claims. On January 17, 2008, McKnight filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), requesting relief from the dismissal of his habeas petition. The district court held that the motion was “jurisdictionally barred” under Rule 60(c)(1) because it was filed more than one year after the entry of judgment. McKnight timely appeals, arguing that his motion should have been treated as timely.

McKnight concedes that the one-year limit set forth in Rule 60(c)(1) governs the timeliness of his Rule 60(b) motion, and that he filed his motion more than one year after the entry of judgment. He contends, however, that the district court erred in construing the one-year limit as a “jurisdictional” requirement. He further contends that because the one-year limit is not “jurisdictional,” the district court erred in concluding that it lacked discretion to treat his motion as timely. We disagree.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2) expressly…