Jamerson v. Wallace

Filing 69

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Michael C. Jamerson's motion to reconsider my earlier orders denying his Rule 60(b) motions 65 and all supplements in relation to his motion to reconsider 62 63 66 67 are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner Michael C. Jamerson's motion to expedite ruling on his motion to reconsider 68 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 7/31/2020. (TMT)

Case: 4:14-cv-00241-CDP Doc. #: 69 Filed: 07/31/20 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 1407

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL C. JAMERSON,
Petitioner,
v.
IAN WALLACE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14 CV 241 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
As I explained in my orders entered July 26, 2019 (ECF 58) and October 2,
2019 (ECF 61), petitioner Michael C. Jamerson is time-barred from seeking Rule
60(b) relief from my March 2016 order and judgment denying habeas relief as well
as my orders denying his various motions to reconsider. His recent unsuccessful
attempts to obtain similar relief in state court do not affect this determination. I will
therefore deny his renewed motion to reconsider as well as his various supplements
to his motion.
To the extent Jamerson asks that I consider his claim of actual innocence
based on new evidence, arguing that he has now exhausted this claim in state court, a
district court may consider new habeas claims only after the appropriate court of
appeals grants a petitioner’s motion to authorize the filing of a second or successive
application for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3); Gonzalez v. Crosby,

Case: 4:14-cv-00241-CDP Doc. #: 69 Filed: 07/31/20 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 1408

545 U.S. 524, 531, 533 (2005) (habeas petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion substantively
addressing federal grounds for setting aside state conviction based on “newly
discovered evidence” in support of a claim previously denied is in substance a
successive habeas petition). Jamerson has not sought such authorization. I must
therefore deny his request to review his claim of actual innocence.
In view of Jamerson being time-barred from seeking reconsideration of my
previous orders and determinations in this case, and that any new claim must be filed
in a new action only after authorization by the court of appeals, any future motions
filed in this case to reconsider previous orders and determinations or to consider new
claims will be summarily denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Michael C. Jamerson’s motion
to reconsider my earlier orders denying his Rule 60(b) motions [65] and all
supplements in relation to his motion to reconsider [62] [63] [66] [67] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner Michael C. Jamerson’s motion
to expedite ruling on his motion to reconsider [68] is DENIED AS MOOT.

_________________________________
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 31st day of July, 2020.
-2-