Bickley v. Bowersox
Filing
21
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Reopen Case [Doc. No. 19 ] DENIED. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 8/15/22. (EAB)
Case: 4:13-cv-01504-HEA Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/15/22 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #: 153
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
EUGENE ANTONIO BICKLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL S. BOWERSOX,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:13CV1504 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s pro se Motion to Reopen Case
[Doc. No. 19]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion will be denied.
Procedural Background
On January 6, 1999, Petitioner was convicted by jury of First-Degree
Murder and Armed Criminal Action in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis,
Missouri. On March 26, 1999, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of
life imprisonment with parole and life imprisonment without parole in the Missouri
Department of Corrections. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District of
Missouri, affirmed his convictions. The Missouri Supreme Court denied his
application to transfer on July 17, 2000. The Petitioner is currently within the
custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections under the previously referenced
sentences.
On October 2, 2000, Petitioner filed his motion for post-conviction relief,
pursuant to Rule 29.15, which was denied by the Missouri state trial court.
Case: 4:13-cv-01504-HEA Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/15/22 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #: 154
Plaintiff then filed a timely notice of appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals. The
Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and issued its mandate on
November 22, 2006.
On July 31, 2013, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 28, 2013, Petitioner filed his Amended
Complaint. Petitioner alleged that 1) the police obtained his confession through the
use of coercion; 2) the police obtained his confession in violation of Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); 3) the police violated the right to counsel in
obtaining his confession; 4) the police violated the right to remain silent in
obtaining his confession; and 5) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a
witness and failing to object to testimony. On July 19, 2016, the Court denied
Petitioner’s Motion and concluded that the petition was untimely filed. Petitioner
filed his petition for habeas corpus six years after the statute of limitations for
filing expired, which is well beyond the one-year deadline. Further, even if the
petition were timely filed, Petitioner did not raise Grounds 1, 2, or 3 in his direct
appeal or appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, and therefore, were
without question procedurally defaulted. Even with these findings, this Court still
proceeded to analyze each of Petitioner’s five grounds for relief and found all five
to be without merit. Petitioner did not file an appeal.
Now Petitioner comes with the instant motion to reopen his case. Although
2
Case: 4:13-cv-01504-HEA Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/15/22 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #: 155
Petitioner does not state a legal basis for relief, the Court will construe it pursuant
to Rule 60(b).
Legal Standard
Rule 60(b) provides relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding under
circumstances where there has been some mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence, with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for new trial; fraud, misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; the judgment is void; the judgment has been
satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been
reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or any
other reason that justifies relief.
Discussion
In his Motion, Petitioner attempts to persuade the Court to grant relief from
its findings. He has challenged these findings throughout the judicial system,
which have continued to be affirmed. Petitioner maintains the same arguments that
the police obtained his confession through the use of coercion and unlawfully
obtained statements from him. Petitioner states a detective involved in his case was
convicted of coercing a statement from someone else. Petitioner also states that his
original Motion was denied for only being untimely. However, the Court
proceeded its analysis even if it was not untimely. Petitioner did not raise Grounds
3
Case: 4:13-cv-01504-HEA Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/15/22 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #: 156
1, 2, or 3 in his direct appeal or appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief and
were procedurally defaulted. Further, each of Petitioner’s grounds were without
merit. The Court articulated its reasoning in finding that Petitioner was not entitled
to a ruling in his favor and found the state courts’ rulings with respect to
Petitioner’s prayer for relief were neither contrary to, nor unreasonable
applications of, clearly established federal law. Petitioner has not articulated any
arguments or facts that would even facially compel relief pursuant to Rule 60(b).
Petitioner has not presented anything new, and he is not entitled to any relief.
Conclusion
Petitioner has not pointed the Court to any mistake so severe as to establish
error under Rule 60(b)(6). Instead, he has reiterated the same arguments which
were the basis of his original Motion. Nothing has changed, nor should the
Opinion, Memorandum and Order in this matter be altered or amended.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Case
[Doc. No. 19] DENIED.
Dated this day 15th of August, 2022.
__________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?