Khaalid v. Bowersox
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. A separate Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 10/21/2013. (CBL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
HASSAN LATIF KHAALID,
a/k/a Marvel Jones,
MICHAEL S. BOWERSOX,
No. 4:13CV01798 ERW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment
under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner seeks relief
from the Court’s denial of habeas corpus relief in March 2000. The motion is denied.
In 1993, petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal
action. Before trial, petitioner was examined by psychologist Dr. Pat Fleming, who
chronicled his history, administered various psychological tests, and concluded that he
suffered from an impairment with psychological stressors preventing him from cooly
reflecting, which is an element of first degree murder. The trial court excluded this
testimony during the guilt phase of the trial, but it allowed the testimony during the
penalty phase. On direct appeal, petitioner argued that the trial court’s exclusion of the
testimony during the guilt phase violated his right to present a defense. The Missouri
Court of Appeals refused to review the claim, finding that petitioner failed to make an
adequate offer of proof.
In his federal habeas petition, petitioner argued that the exclusion of the
testimony violated his due process and equal protection rights. This Court denied the
claim after finding that it was procedurally defaulted.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the claim on the merits
and found that petitioner was not entitled to relief. The court found that “Dr. Fleming’s
testimony did not include a determination that Khaalid suffers from a mental disease
or defect as defined by Missouri law, it was properly excluded, and thus Khaalid’s
claim fails.” Khaalid v. Bowersox, 259 F.3d 975, 979 (8th Cir. 2001).
In the instant motion, petitioner argues that the Court erred in finding that his
claim was procedurally defaulted.
Petitioner’s argument is moot in light of the fact that the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals reviewed the claim on the merits and found it lacking. As a result, petitioner
is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). Additionally, the Court does not believe the
motion was filed in a “reasonable time” as required by Rule 60(c).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment
under Rule 60(b)(6) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis is GRANTED.
A separate Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith.
So Ordered this 21st day of October, 2013.
E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?