United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. Russell, III United States District Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Andrew Joseph
Dicks' unopposed Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF
No. 15). The Motion is ripe for disposition, and no hearing
is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2018). For
the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Motion
and require Respondents to answer Dicks'
Bradyclaim on the merits.
February 27, 2019, the Court dismissed Dicks' Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) as
time-barred and declined to issue a Certificate of
Appealability.(Feb. 27, 2019 Mem. Op. & Order, ECF
Nos. 13, 14). In its Memorandum Opinion, the Court relied on
the 2013 date Dicks received his
Miranda form in his Anne Arundel County case,
Dicks v. Armstead, et al., No. GLR-17-793 (D.Md.
dismissed Feb. 27, 2019), in concluding that Dicks'
Petition in this case is time-barred. (Feb. 27, 2019 Mem. Op.
at 7). In that case, Dicks stated that “while preparing
for Post-Conviction” in 2013, he discovered a copy of a
Miranda form he argues is a basis for habeas relief
in his Anne Arundel County case. (Id.). Therefore,
relying on 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B), the Court found
that the beginning date of the 2244(d)(1) one-year statute of
limitations was some time in 2013 when Dicks initially
discovered this alleged Brady material.
(Id.). Dicks did not file his Petition in this case
until October 23, 2017-well past the one-year statute of
limitations. (Id.). As a result, the Court concluded
that Dicks' Brady claim was time-barred.
(Id. at 7-8). The Court also concluded that
Dicks' other claims were time-barred under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1)(A). (Id. at 6). Thus, the Court
dismissed the Petition as time-barred without examining
Dicks' claims on the merits. (Id. at 8).
March 19, 2019, Dicks filed his Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment. (ECF No. 15). To date, the Court has no record that
Respondents filed an Opposition.
may move for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, or for relief from
a final judgment under Rule 60. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
59(e) & 60(b). If a party files a motion to alter or
amend within twenty-eight days of the judgment, the Court
analyzes it under Rule 59(e). Bolden v. McCabe,
Weisberg & Conway, LLC, No. DKC 13-1265,
2014 WL 994066, at *1 n.1 (D.Md. Mar. 13, 2014). If the
motion is filed later, the Court reviews it under Rule 60(b).
Id. Here, Dicks filed his Motion on March 19,
2019-twenty days after the Court entered its Order dismissing
the Petition. Accordingly, Rule 59(e) controls the
district court may only alter or amend a final judgment under
Rule 59(e) in three circumstances: “(1) to accommodate
an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for
new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a
clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.”
United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., 866
F.3d 199, 210 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Zinkand v.
Brown, 478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir. 2007)). A Rule 59(e)
amendment is “an extraordinary remedy which should be
used sparingly.” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l
Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998)
(quoting Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 124
(2d ed. 1995)). Furthermore, “[a] motion for
reconsideration is ‘not the proper place to relitigate
a case after the court has ruled against a party, as mere
disagreement with a court's rulings will not support
granting such a request.'” Lynn v. Monarch
Recovery Mgmt., Inc., 953 F.Supp.2d 612, 620 (D.Md.
2013) (quoting Sanders v. Prince George's Pub. Sch.
Sys., No. RWT 08CV501, 2011 WL 4443441, at *1 (D.Md.
Sept. 21, 2011)).
Motion for Reconsideration, Dicks contends that the Court
erred when it relied on the 2013 date that he discovered the
Miranda form in his Anne Arundel County case. He
asserts that while he had discovered the alleged
Brady violation related to tampering with his
Miranda form in his Anne Arundel County case in
2013, he did not know whether he had the same issue in his
Baltimore County cases because he did not have his discovery
file in those cases. Dicks maintains that he did not receive
the discovery file for his Baltimore County cases, which
contained the Miranda form that he argues provides a
basis for habeas relief in this case, until January 28, 2015.
In support of this assertion, Dicks cites to a letter from
the Baltimore County District Public Defender, dated January
28, 2015, that he attached to his Response to
Respondents' Limited Answer. (Petr.'s Resp. Ex. 1 at
6, ECF No. 10-1). Dicks maintains that under 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1)(D), the one-year statute of limitations should run
the date he discovered this alleged Brady material-
January 28, 2015. The Court agrees that it should not have
relied on the 2013 date from Dicks' Anne Arundel County
case. As a result, the Court will consider whether Dicks'
Brady claim is time-barred under §
2244(d)(1)(D) provides that the one-year limitations period
runs from “the date on which the factual predicate of
the claim or claims presented could have been discovered
through the exercise of due diligence.” The time during
which a properly filed state post-conviction petition is
pending does not count towards the one-year limitations
period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
Dicks discovered the factual predicate for his Brady
claim related to alleged tampering with his Miranda
forms on January 28, 2015. On October 25, 2015, 270 days later,
Dicks filed his post-conviction petition in state court,
which tolled § 2244(d)(1)'s one-year statute of
limitations. (Resp'ts' Ltd. Ans. Ex. 1, [“State
Court Docket”] at 13, ECF No. 7-1). On February 16,
2017, the post-conviction court denied his petition. (Pet.
Ex. B, ECF No. 1-4). Dicks appealed. (State Court Docket at
14). On July 12, 2017, the Court of Special Appeals denied
Dicks' application for leave to appeal, (Pet. Exs. C, F,
ECF Nos. 1-5, 1-8), and its mandate issued on August 11,
2017, (State Court Docket at 14). On October 23, 2017, Dicks
filed the instant Petition-seventy-three days after the conclusion
of his state post-conviction proceedings. Adding these
seventy-three days to the 270 days between Dicks'
discovery of the purported Brady material and the
filing of his post-conviction petition in state court, 343
days elapsed, placing Dicks' Brady claim within
the one-year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
the Court concludes that Dicks' Brady claim is
not time-barred. Accordingly, the Court will grant Dicks'
Motion, amend its February 27, 2019 Order to the extent that
it dismissed Dicks' Brady claim as time-barred,
and require Respondents to answer Dicks' Brady
claim on the merits.
foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Dicks' Motion to
Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 15) and direct Respondents
to file an answer to the Petition that responds only to
Dicks' Brady claim within sixty days of the date
of this Order. Dicks may file a Response ...