Duane Gonder v. Dexter Payne, No. 21-1056 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Shepherd, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Gonder's post-judgment motions in this Sec. 2254 proceeding.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-3735 ___________________________ Duane J. Gonder lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction (originally named as Wendy Kelley) lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ___________________________ No. 21-1056 ___________________________ Duane J. Gonder lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction (originally named as Wendy Kelley) lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff ____________ Submitted: November 23, 2021 Filed: November 30, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated matters, Duane Gonder appeals after the district court1 denied his post-judgment motions in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding and granted a certificate of appealability. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Gonder’s post-judgment motions based on a lack of prejudice. See Raymond v. United States, 933 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2019) (reviewing the denial of a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for an abuse of discretion; observing that a good claim or defense is a precondition to relief). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Gonder’s pending pro se motion to “preserve the effectiveness of the judgment.” ______________________________ 1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
