Young v. Bowersox

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners "Motion for Relief as an Independent Action under Rule 60(d)(1)(6)" [# 20 ] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to pr oceed in forma pauperis [# 21 ] is denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court will not issue a certificate of appealability, as petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 11/19/2014. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KEITH STANLEY YOUNG,
Petitioner,
vs.
MICHAEL BOWERSOX,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:06 CV 779 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on petitioner’s “Motion for Relief as an
Independent Action under Rule 60(d)(1)(6).” Petitioner pled guilty to forcible
sodomy and stealing, and that conviction was affirmed by the Missouri Court of
Appeals on October 25, 1983. The Missouri Court of Appeals denied his motion
for rehearing or transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court on November 30, 1983,
and the Missouri Supreme Court denied his application to transfer on January 17,
1984. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was
denied by this Court on June 12, 2006, as time-barred. The Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals denied petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability on August
29, 2006, and denied motions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc on January
16, 2007.

Petitioner now seeks relief under a provision of Rule 60 which does not
exist. The grounds for relief are also unclear, but it appears that petitioner is
arguing that the Court made a mistake in dismissing his petition as time-barred.
The Court’s ruling was not in error as petitioner’s habeas petition was mailed 21
years after the statute of limitations ran, so the motion is denied whether asserted
under (b)(6) or (d)(1). See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U .S. 524, 535–36 (2005)
(Rule 60(b) motion challenging district court’s previous ruling on statute of
limitations was not the equivalent of a successive habeas petition); Fox v. Brewer,
620 F.2d 177, 180 (8th Cir. 1980) (“Rule 60(d) provides for extraordinary relief on
a showing of exceptional circumstances.”).1
Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As petitioner was
previously granted leave to proceed in this case IFP, the motion will be denied as
moot.
Finally, because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial
of a federal constitutional right, this Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability. See Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing Flieger
v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 882-83 (8th Cir. 1994)) (substantial showing must be

1

To the extent the motion is brought under Rule 60(b)(6), it is alternatively denied because it was
not “made within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). What constitutes “a reasonable
time” depends on the circumstances, Middleton v. McDonald, 388 F.3d 614, 617 (8th Cir. 2004),
but here petitioner offers no explanation for why it took him so long to seek Rule 60(b) relief
after his habeas petition was denied in 2007.
2

debatable among reasonable jurists, reasonably subject to a different outcome on
appeal, or otherwise deserving of further proceedings).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s “Motion for Relief as an
Independent Action under Rule 60(d)(1)(6)” [#20] is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis [#21] is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability, as petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
federal constitutional right.

_________________________________
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 19th day of November, 2014.

3