United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
DARVELL D. YORK, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent
For United States of America, Plaintiff: Maureen Elizabeth Merin, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Attorney's Office, Chicago, IL; Monika Bickert, United States Attorney's Office (NDIL), Chicago, IL.
Darvell Dwayne York, Defendant, Pro se, Marion, IL.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Rubén Castillo, Chief United States District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Darvell D. York's pro se motion for relief from the district court's denial of his section 2255 petition to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies York's Rule 60(b) motion, and this case is dismissed with prejudice.
Following a jury trial presided over by our departed colleague, Judge William J. Hibbler, York was found guilty of knowingly and intentionally distributing 50 grams or more of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) on September 8, 2006. On January 8, 2007, Judge Hibbler sentenced York to 360 months in prison, followed by ten years of supervised release. On July 15, 2009, the Seventh Circuit affirmed York's conviction and sentence. United States v. York, 572 F.3d 415 (7th Cir. 2009).
On August 13, 2010, York filed the instant pro se petition to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (R. 1, Pet.) York argued that: (1) his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to investigate or interview the confidential informant in the case, Tracy Mitchell, before trial and by failing to call Mitchell to testify at trial; and (2) the prosecution engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by failing to disclose the details of Mitchell's statements and by eliciting perjured testimony at trial regarding Mitchell's statements. ( Id. at 7-13.) On August 16, 2011, the district court denied York's section 2255 petition. United States v. York, No. 10 C 5098, 2011 WL 3651326 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2011) (Hibbler, J.). The court found that because York could not show that he was prejudiced by any of the errors he alleged his counsel and the prosecution committed, he could not succeed on either of his claims. Id. at *2.
On August 30, 2011, York filed his notice of appeal. (R. 14, Not. App.) On September 6, 2011, the district court denied York's request for a certificate of appealability. (R. 16, Min. Entry.) The Seventh Circuit denied York's request for a certificate of appealability on June 1, 2012. (R. 25, 7th Cir. Order Denying COA.)
On October 18, 2012, York moved the district court for relief from its denial of his section 2255 petition pursuant to Rule 60(b). York's case was reassigned to this Court, and his Rule 60(b) motion is presently before the Court.
" Rule 60(b) relief is an extraordinary remedy and is granted only in exceptional circumstances." Harrington v. City of Chi., 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting Karraker v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 411 F.3d 831, 837 (7th Cir. 2005)). A Rule 60(b) motion permits relief from a final judgment, ...