Marshall v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 01 October 2021
• Docket Number: 1:19-cv-00083 SRC
• Parties: JOHN MARSHALL, Petitioner, v. JASON LEWIS Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

JOHN MARSHALL, Petitioner,
v.
JASON LEWIS Respondents.

No. 1:19-cv-00083 SRC

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division

October 1, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STEPHEN R. CLARK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

John Marshall seeks reconsideration of this Court's order lifting the stay of his federal-habeas proceedings. Doc. 33. Yet, he offers nothing for new for the Court to consider, and instead merely restates the same arguments the Court already rejected. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion.

I. Background

On April 4, 2020, this Court granted Marshall's motion to stay his petition for a writ of habeas corpus so that he could advance new claims in state court. Doc. 23. On August 31, 2020, Marshall filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Pike County Circuit Court alleging seven claims not previously presented in Marshall's state review proceedings. On April 23, 2021, the Court lifted the stay and ordered Marshall to file his reply to Respondent's response to show cause order. Doc. 33.

On May 20, 2021, the Pike County Circuit Court found that Marshall's claims in his state habeas petition were procedurally defaulted without excuse and denied his petition. Doc. 37-1. On June 25, 2021, Marshall filed a motion to reconsider this Court's order lifting the stay. Doc. 34.

1

II. Standard

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not mention motions for reconsideration. See Elder-Keep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 984 (8th Cir. 2006). Thus, motions for reconsideration are typically construed by the Court as either a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment or a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. Ackerland v. United States, 633 F.3d 698, 701 (8th Cir. 2011). A district court has wide discretion over whether to grant a motion for reconsideration of a prior order, In re Charter Commc'ns, Inc., Sec. Litig., 443 F.3d 987, 993 (8th Cir. 2006), reversal is only wanted “for a clear abuse of discretion.” Paris Limousine of Okla., LLC v. Exec. Coach Builders, Inc., 867 F.3d 871, 873 (8th Cir. 2017).

II. Discussion

Marshall presents nothing that warrants the Court to reconsider its previous order lifting the stay. First, he claims that he was not claiming to have new evidence, but rather that he had evidence that his trial counsel failed to present at trial. Doc. 34 at p. 2. Next, he argues that his claims are not procedurally defaulted when a “petitioner can demonstrate...