Steele v. Falkenrath

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 9 MOTION to Reopen Case filed by Petitioner Robert H. Steele. Motion is DENIED. Signed by Sr. District Judge John A. Ross on 11/25/24. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT H. STEELE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
JEFF FALKENRATH,
Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-00098-PLC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner Robert H. Steele, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to reopen this action.
(ECF No. 9). The Court will deny the motion for the reasons below.
Background
In its October 18, 2024 Order, the Court informed petitioner that his original petition was
deficient under Local Rule 2.06(A) because it was not filed on the Court-approved form. (ECF No.
5). The Court granted petitioner 30 days to file an amended petition on the appropriate form. Id.
Petitioner instead filed a notice of dismissal (ECF No. 7), and the Court dismissed the action on
November 4, 2024. (ECF No. 8).
Petitioner now seeks to reopen this matter. (ECF No. 9). He states that he prematurely filed
his notice of dismissal because he feared he would not be able to file an amended petition within
the allotted time. Id.
Discussion
While petitioner does not specifically cite a legal rule or standard for his request, he appears
to argue that he filed his notice of dismissal inadvertently. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)
allows a court to reopen a case because of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."

However, Rule 60(b) is designed to provide relief in extraordinary circumstances, and it requires
a strong showing that such circumstances exist. See U.S. Xpress Enters., Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transp.,
Inc., 320 F.3d 809, 815 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoted case omitted). Here, petitioner has not explained
why he was unable to file his amended petition within the 30 days provided by the Court.
Additionally, the petition appears to be untimely. Petitioner challenges his April 12, 2010,
criminal judgment in State v. Steele, No. 09G9-CR02259-01 (24th Jud. Cir. 2010). Congress has
established a one-year statute of limitations for habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). This
limitation period runs from the latest of: (1) the date on which the judgment became final; (2) the
date on which any state-created impediment to filing is removed; (3) the date on which the asserted
constitutional right was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if newly recognized and made
retroactive; or (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim could have been discovered
through due diligence. Id.
More than 14 years have passed since petitioner's state court judgment, and he has not
explained why the one-year limitation period in § 2244(d) should not apply in this case. While he
attempts to circumvent this limitation by asserting claims under state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
the Supreme Court has held that when a state prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his
imprisonment and seeks immediate or speedier release, his only federal remedy is a writ of habeas
corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).

2

Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court will deny petitioner’s motion to reopen. Nothing in this order
prevents petitioner from filing a separate civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to reopen (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.
Dated this 25th day of November 2024.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3