Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Parkerr v. Hammers

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 30, 2017

CHRISTOPHER L. PARKER, Petitioner,
v.
JUSTIN HAMMERS, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HERNDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On July 14, 2014, the court dismissed Christopher L. Parker's petition for habeas relief pursuant to §2254. See, Doc. 60. Almost three years later, Parker filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), Doc. 62. Based on the following, the Rule 60(b)(6) motion is DENIED.

         Procedural History

         In 2009, petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sexual assault in Illinois state court and was sentenced to five years and three months' imprisonment and a term of mandatory supervised release (“MSR”) of three years to life. After several amendments, his § 2254 petition sets forth three claims: (1) his statutorily imposed term of mandatory supervised release was unconstitutional; (2) his constitutional rights were violated when he was questioned outside the presence of a parent, legal guardian, or lawyer because he was only 17 years old; and (3) his constitutional rights are being violated by being forced to serve his term of mandatory supervised release in prison because he cannot provide a suitable host site for his release.

         On July 14, 2017, this Court dismissed the first two claims with prejudice as time-barred. The third claim was dismissed without prejudice because petitioner had not exhausted state judicial remedies as to that claim. Parker did not appeal.

         Parker has filed two subsequent § 2254 petitions, challenging the constitutionality of his MSR term (Case No. 16-cv-908-DRH) and attacking the validity of his conviction (Case No. 16-1082-DRH). The subsequent petitions were dismissed in December 2016, and petitioner did not appeal.

         In his Rule 60(b)(6) motion, Parker argues that he should be relieved of the judgment in this case and of the judgment entered in Case No. 16-1082-DRH because “a constitutional challenge to a criminal statute can be raised at any time.” (Doc. 62, p. 1) He also argues that he has filed a petition for mandamus with the Illinois Supreme Court and that there are no other state remedies that he can pursue.

         Applicable Legal Standards

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) provides that the court may relieve a party from a judgment for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.