SUSAN D. WIGENTON, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Petitioner Tommie Telfair's motion for relief from this Court's denial of his motion to vacate sentence brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). (ECF No. 71). For the following reasons, this Court will deny Petitioner's motion.
As this Court has explained the basis for Petitioner's underlying claims in two extensive prior opinions (see ECF Nos. 36, 58), that information will not be repeated here, and the Court will instead only provide a brief recitation of the procedural history of this matter. Petitioner, Tommie Telfair, filed his motion to vacate his sentence on or about October 25, 2013. (ECF No.
1). Following briefing, this Court denied all but one of Petitioner's claims by way of an order and opinion issued on February 17, 2016. (ECF Nos. 36-37). In the February 2016 order and opinion, however, this Court ordered an evidentiary hearing as to Petitioner's claim that his statement had been taken in violation of his Miranda rights. (Id.).
This Court held a hearing on that issue on August 3, 2017. (See ECF No. 60). Following the hearing, this Court issued an order and opinion denying Petitioner's Miranda claim and denying Petitioner a certificate of appealability. (ECF Nos. 58-59). In that second opinion, this Court specifically found Petitioner's testimony at the hearing incredible, "inconsistent[,] and unreliable," and found the testimony of Petitioner's purported expert witness of no value to the Court's determination. (ECF No. 58 at 8-9). The Court also found the testimony of the various officers both consistent with the testimony given at Petitioner's trial and to be credible. (Id. at 7-8). Having reached these conclusions as to the credibility of Petitioner and the officers who interviewed Petitioner prior to his trial, this Court rejected Petitioner's Miranda claim, finding as follows:
(Id. at 10-11).
Following the denial of his final claim and the denial of a certificate of appealability, Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time within which to file a Rule 59(e) or 60(b) motion, which this Court denied on November 8, 2017, as the Court is without authority to grant such an extension. (ECF No. 67). Petitioner thereafter filed an untimely motion for reconsideration of the Court's September 2017 order and opinion on or about November 11, 2017. (ECF No. 68). This Court denied that motion as untimely filed under either Rule 59(e) or Local Rule 7.1(i) by way of an order entered on November 20, 2017. (ECF No. 69). Petitioner thereafter filed his present motion, in which he requests that the Court treat his prior motion for reconsideration as a motion for relief from judgment brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6).
"Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence." Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 529 (2005). "The remedy provided by Rule 60(b) is extraordinary, and special circumstances must justify granting relief under it." Jones v. Citigroup, Inc., Civil Action No. 14-6547, 2015 WL 3385938, at *3 (D.N.J. May 26, 2015) (quoting Moolenaar v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, 822 F.3d 1342, 1346 (3d Cir. 1987). A Rule 60(b) motion "may not be used as a substitute for appeal, and that legal error, without more cannot justify granting a Rule 60(b) motion." Holland v. Holt, 409 F. App'x 494, 497 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Smith v. Evans, 853 F.2d 155, 158 (3d Cir. 1988)). A motion under Rule 60(b) may not be granted where the moving party could have raised the same legal argument by means of a direct appeal. Id. While Rules 60(b)(1)-(5) permit reopening a judgment for specific, enumerated reasons, Rule 60(b)(6) permits a party to seek relief from a final judgment for "any . . . reason that justifies relief." "The standard for granting a Rule 60(b)(6) motion is a high one. The movant must show `extraordinary circumstances' to justify reopening a final judgment." Michael v. Wetzel, 570 F. App'x 176, 180 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 536). "[A] showing of extraordinary circumstances involves a showing that without relief from the judgment, `an "extreme" and "unexpected" hardship will result.'" Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 255 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Mayberry v. Maroney, 558 F.2d 1159, 1163 (3d Cir. 1977)).
In his motion for reconsideration, which Petitioner now wishes to have addressed as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), Petitioner essentially expresses his disagreement with this Court's credibility determinations and ultimate denial of his Miranda claim. Petitioner argues that the Court should accept his version of events, rather than those testified to by the agents who testified at trial and at his hearing, and that based on his testimony and arguments he should be entitled to relief as he asserts both that he asked for counsel and that he was improperly coerced or threatened. This Court, however, already rejected these arguments in denying Petitioner's Miranda claim, finding that Petitioner's testimony was "inconsistent and unreliable," and ultimately incredible. This Court instead credited the testimony of the agents, and determined, for the reasons expressed above, that Petitioner's statement to the Government had not been taken in violation of his Miranda rights. Petitioner has therefore presented no more than his mere disagreement with this Court's rejection of both his credibility during the hearing and his Miranda claim, and has not shown any extraordinary circumstances warranting relief from this Court's prior judgment. This Court has fully considered Petitioner's testimony and the claims presented in his § 2255 motion, and has found those claims meritless in light of the record and the testimony at Petitioner's hearing. As Petitioner has failed to show any actual error on the Court's part, and has in any event failed to show any extraordinary circumstances, his Rule 60(b)(6) motion must be denied. Michael, 570 F. App'x at 180; see also Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 536.
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner's motion (ECF No. 71) is DENIED. An appropriate order follows.