Walker v. Cassady

Filing 63

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Relief From Final Judgment, [Doc. No. 59 ] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 8/30/17. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ALBERT WALKER,
Petitioner,
v.
CINDY GRIFFITH,
Respondent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13CV2422 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner=s Motion for Relief From a Final
Judgment [Doc. No. 59]. The Motion is brought pursuant to Rule 60 (b)(5) and (6).
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
On May 2, 2017, the Court entered its Opinion, Memorandum and Order
denying Plaintiff’s request to alter or amend its order and judgment relating to his
Motion to Vacate Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C §2254.
Rule 60 (b) (5) permits a court to relieve a party or its legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for limited reasons. Relief may be
afforded where 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. Rule 60(b) (6) provides for relief for “any other reason that
1

justifies relief”.
In his Motion, Plaintiff attempts to persuade the Court to grant relief from
its findings which led to the conclusion that this Court must deny the relief he sought
under 28 U.S.C §2254. Petitioner has presented nothing new, nor has he pointed
the Court to any circumstance from the record or otherwise to cause the court to
grant the relief now sought. Petitioner has not articulated any arguments or facts
that would even facially compel relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). Instead he has
reiterated the same arguments which were the basis of his original Motion. The
Court articulated its reasoning in finding that Petitioner was not entitled habeas
relief. Nothing has changed, nor should the Opinion, Memorandum and Order in
this matter be altered or amended or the order rejecting his attempts under Rule
59(e).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Relief From Final
Judgment, [Doc. No.59] is DENIED.
Dated this 30th day of August, 2017.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2