United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
CHRISTOPHER L. PARKER, Petitioner,
JUSTIN HAMMERS, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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 ...