Shores v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARK EDWIN SHORES, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 4:14-cv-1019-MTS
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Mark Edwin Shores’s Motion to Alter
or Amend Judgment. 	Doc. [43]; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 	His Motion seeks to
reopen his § 2255 proceeding to add a new ground for relief based on Erlinger v. United
States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024). 	Respondent, the United States of America, opposes the
Motion. 	Doc. [46]. 	After review and consideration of the briefing and the relevant law,
the Court will dismiss Petitioner’s Motion for the reasons ably explained by the United
States in its opposition.
Petitioner’s Motion is a second or successive application that this Court cannot
entertain. See Rivers v. Guerrero, 605 U.S. 443, 453 (2025); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
Since this Rule 60(b) motion “is actually a second or successive habeas petition,” the
Court may “dismiss it for failure to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals” or
“may transfer the purported Rule 60(b) motion to the Court of Appeals.” Boyd v. United
States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). This Court chooses to dismiss the
Motion. 	Erlinger is not retroactively applicable to Petitioner. 	See Erlinger, 602 U.S. at
Case: 4:14-cv-01019-MTS Doc. #: 47 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
859 n.3 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“[T]he Teague[*] rule will presumably bar the
defendant from raising today’s new rule in collateral proceedings.”); see also Chad
Flanders, The Impact of Erlinger v. United States on State Recidivist Sentencing Laws, 82
Wash. & Lee L. Rev. Online 456, 474 (2025). Thus, it is not in the interest of justice to
transfer this matter to the Court of Appeals. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (allowing for transfer
to cure want of jurisdiction “if it is in the interest of justice”); In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249,
1251–52 	(10th 	Cir. 	2008) 	(per 	curiam) 	(discussing 	a 	district 	court’s 	discretion 	in
determining whether to transfer unauthorized second or successive claims). Nor will the
Court issue a certificate of appealability of the dismissal of this Motion.
Accordingly,
IT 	IS 	HEREBY 	ORDERED 	that 	Petitioner’s 	Motion 	to 	Alter 	or 	Amend,
Doc. [43], is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Dated this 3rd day of February 2026.
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
* Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310 (1989) (plurality opinion).
Case: 4:14-cv-01019-MTS Doc. #: 47 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>