Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Timothy Lee Newton v. Jeremiah Nixon, 04-2562 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 04-2562 Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 12, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-2562 _ Timothy Lee Newton, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Jeremiah Nixon, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee, * _ Submitted: September 30, 2004 Filed: October 12, 2004 _ Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Timothy Lee Newton brought an action for damages, claiming the Missouri Attorney General had engaged in fraud when he opposed Newton’s
More
                     United States Court of Appeals
                           FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 04-2562
                                   ___________

Timothy Lee Newton,                     *
                                        *
                   Appellant,           * Appeal from the United States
                                        * District Court for the Western
      v.                                * District of Missouri.
                                        *
Jeremiah Nixon,                         *      [UNPUBLISHED]
                                        *
                   Appellee,            *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: September 30, 2004
                                Filed: October 12, 2004
                                 ___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Timothy Lee Newton brought an action for damages, claiming the Missouri
Attorney General had engaged in fraud when he opposed Newton’s earlier federal
habeas corpus petition. The district court* viewed this action as an attempt to revive
the habeas case, and dismissed the complaint. After careful review, we conclude
dismissal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I). Newton’s action was
legally frivolous because it depended on the habeas court’s having wrongly
determined his petition was time-barred. See Kelly v. Armstrong, 
141 F.3d 799
, 801

      *
       The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
(8th Cir. 1998) (issue preclusion). Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Newton’s
pending motions.
                      ______________________________




                                    -2-

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer