Petrovic v. United States of America

Filing 75

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners Motions to Reopen, [Doc. No.s 61 and 62 ] are denied. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 10/27/17. (JAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOVICA PETROVIC,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14CV334 HEA

OPINION,MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motions to Reopen his Motion
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, [Doc. No.’s 61 and 62]. For the reasons set forth
below, the Motions are denied.
On October 7, 2015, the Court denied Petitioner’s Motion pursuant to Section
2255. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Court’s decision.
Petitioner sought rehearing, which was denied on June 1, 2016. Thereafter,
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was
denied. Petitioner then filed two motions to reopen pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6).
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.
In his Motions, Petitioner attempts to persuade the Court to grant relief from
its findings. He has challenged these findings throughout the judicial system. The
findings have been affirmed, and the Supreme Court has refused to consider
Petitioner’s request for review. Petitioner has presented nothing new, nor has he
pointed the Court to any mistake so severe as to establish error under Rule 60(b)(6).
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 to a ruling in his favor. Nothing has changed, nor
should the Opinion, Memorandum and Order in this matter be altered or amended.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions to Reopen, [Doc.

2

No.’s 61 and 62] are denied.
Dated this 27th day of October, 2017.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3