Jefferson v. Lawrence

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 72 PRO SE MOTION filed by Petitioner Elmer Lee Jefferson, 73 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Petitioner Elmer Lee Jefferson motions are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Abbie Crites-Leoni on 5/17/16. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ELMER L. JEFFERSON,
Petitioner,
vs.
ELLIS McSWAIN, JR.,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13CV542 ACL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On January 14, 2016, the Court denied Jefferson’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 and dismissed the Petition with prejudice. (Doc. 70.) Presently
pending before the Court is Petitioner Elmer L. Jefferson’s “Objection to Magistrate Judge’s
Dismissal with Prejudice [of] Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254”
(Doc. 72), and “Amendment to Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Dismissal with Prejudice for
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255” (Doc. 73).
The Court will construe Jefferson’s objections as motions for reconsideration pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Under Rule 60(b)(6), a court may grant relief from
judgment for a “reason justifying relief from the operation of judgment.” Relief is available
under Rule 60(b)(6) only where exceptional circumstances have denied the moving party a full
and fair opportunity to litigate his claim and have prevented him from seeking redress through the
usual channels. Harley v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir. 2005); Atkinson v. Prudential
Prop. Co., Inc., 43 F.3d 367, 373 (8th Cir. 1994). “‘Exceptional circumstances’ are not present
every time a party is subject to potentially unfavorable consequences as a result of an adverse
judgment properly arrived at.” Atkinson, 43 F.3d at 373.

Page 1 of 2

The undersigned has considered Jefferson’s objections, and finds that Jefferson has failed
to show exceptional circumstances warranting Rule 60(b)(6) relief. Throughout the course of
these proceedings, Jefferson had ample opportunity to address and argue his claims to this Court
with numerous filings of briefs, supplements, and motions. Jefferson has not shown that he was
unable to fully and fairly litigate his claims or to seek redress through the usual channels. The
undersigned’s Memorandum and Order of January 14, 2016, addressed all of Jefferson’s claims
and related arguments and set out the reasons for denying Jefferson relief. Jefferson’s mere
disagreement with the Court's determination is insufficient to warrant Rule 60(b) relief. Thus,
the Court declines to reconsider its determination.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Jefferson’s motions for reconsideration (Docs. 72, 73)
are denied.

Dated: May 17, 2016.

ABBIE CRITES-LEONI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2