Phillips v. USA
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Accordingly,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movant's Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b)(6) (Doc. 8 ) is DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 10/13/20. (JAB)
Case: 4:16-cv-01007-JAR Doc. #: 10 Filed: 10/13/20 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 30
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 4:16-cv-01007-JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court in this closed case on Movant’s Motion for Relief Under
Rule 60(b)(6). (Doc. 8). On June 23, 2016, Movant filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 1). Upon review, Judge Carol E. Jackson noted that
Movant had previously filed a § 2255 motion which was denied on October 15, 2012 and dismissed
on appeal on March 27, 2013. (Doc. 6). Movant failed to obtain certification from the appropriate
court of appeals as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), and Judge Jackson properly dismissed the
second motion as result. (Id.). Movant now seeks relief from Judge Jackson’s dismissal under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).
Upon filing of a Rule 60(b) motion following dismissal of a habeas petition, the Eighth
Circuit encourages district courts to “conduct a brief inquiry to determine whether the allegations
in the Rule 60(b) motion in fact amount to a second or successive collateral attack under … 28
U.S.C. § 2255.” Boyd v. U.S., 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002). A Rule 60(b) motion is considered
a second or successive habeas petition if it contains a “claim.” See Ward v. Norris, 577 F.3d 925,
933 (8th Cir. 2009); Rhodes v. United States, 2019 WL 1243128, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 18, 2019).
A Rule 60(b) motion contains a “claim” if it “seeks to add a new ground for relief” or “attacks the
Case: 4:16-cv-01007-JAR Doc. #: 10 Filed: 10/13/20 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 31
federal court’s previous resolution on the merits.” Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005).
Movant seeks relief on the grounds that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence. This
clearly constitutes a “claim” and not a procedural defect under applicable precedent. The motion
is therefore a second or successive habeas petition. Because Movant still has not obtained
certification from the appropriate court of appeals, dismissal is warranted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movant’s Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b)(6) (Doc.
8) is DISMISSED.
Dated this 13th day of October, 2020.
JOHN A. ROSS
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?