No. 23-5585

Scott David Creech v. Tim Shoop, Warden

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-09-14
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure federal-rules-of-civil-procedure fourth-amendment franks-v-delaware habeas-corpus rule-60-motion statute-of-limitations stone-v-powell
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2023-10-27
Question Presented (from Petition)

CAN A LEGITIMATE 60(B)(6) MOTION BE CONSIDERED A 60(B)(3)
CLAIM, IF THAT CLAIM DOES NOT ASSERT RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
IN THE EVENT OF "FRAUD . . . MISREPRESENTATION, OR
MISCONDUCT BY AN OPPOSING PARTY? AS SUCH, CAN IT BE BARRED
BY THE ONE (1) YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS?

DOES THE CASE OF STONE V. POWELL. 428 U.S. 465. 494, 96 S. CT. 3037,
49 L. ED. 2D 1067 (I976L OVERRIDE THE CASE OF FRANKS V.
DELAWARE. 438 U.S. 154. 98 S. CT. 2674, 57 L. ED. 2D 667 (1978) IN A
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION? AND WAS PETITIONER PROVIDED A
FULL AND FAIR LITIGATION OF HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIM IN
STATE COURT?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Can a 60(b)(6) motion be considered a 60(b)(3) claim if it does not assert relief from judgment due to fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party?

Docket Entries

2023-10-30
Petition DENIED.
2023-10-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2023.
2023-10-10
Waiver of right of respondent Shoop, Warden to respond filed.
2023-08-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 16, 2023)

Attorneys

Scott D. Creech
Scott David Creech — Petitioner
Shoop, Warden
Michael Jason HendershotOhio Attorney General's Office, Respondent