French v. Wallace

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 31 MOTION in Limine filed by Petitioner Gerrek French motion is DENIED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 7/10/15. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

GERREK FRENCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
IAN WALLACE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-472-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion in Limine Alternatively Motion for
Evidentiary Hearing for “Offer of Proof” of States Knowing Use of Perjured Testimony.” (Doc.
No. 31) Plaintiff seeks an order prohibiting the knowing use of false testimony from State’s
witness Artavia Calvin. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests an evidentiary hearing in order to make
an offer of proof of Ms. Calvin’s false and inconsistent statements.
Plaintiff first requested an evidentiary hearing on March 13, 2013. (Doc. No. 4) His
request was denied without prejudice on April 4, 2013. (Doc. No. 9) On April 25, 2013, Plaintiff
again moved for an evidentiary hearing, stating a hearing was required to establish that perjury
had been committed before the state court. (Doc. No. 12) Finding Plaintiff’s claims did not
require further factual development and could be adequately resolved on the record, the Court
determined an evidentiary hearing was not necessary and denied Plaintiff’s motion on April 30,
2013. (Doc. No. 13)
Upon consideration, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion in limine and for evidentiary
hearing. In a § 2254 habeas corpus proceeding, the Court’s review of the underlying state court
1

record is limited to constitutional errors by the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (A district
court “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of
the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”). Moreover, an evidentiary hearing is
not necessary when the merits of petitioner's claims may be resolved based on the state court
record. McCann v. Armontrout, 973 F.2d 655, 658–59 (8th Cir.1992). See also 28 U.S.C. §
2254(e)(2).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion in Limine Alternatively Motion for
Evidentiary Hearing for “Offer of Proof” of States Knowing Use of Perjured Testimony” [31] is
DENIED.

Dated this 10th day of July, 2015.

_______________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2