Newton v. Outlaw

Filing 25

ORDER denying pltf's 21 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge H. David Young on 7/17/12. (vjt)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION DAMEYON ANTOINE NEWTON v. PETITIONER NO. 2:12CV00023 HDY T.C. OUTLAW, Warden, FCI Forrest City, Arkansas RESPONDENT ORDER On June 21, 2012, petitioner Dameyon Antoine Newton (“Newton”) filed two pleadings that the Clerk of the Court construed as a motion for reconsideration and accompanying brief. See Documents 21 and 22. In the pleadings, Newton alleged that he still had not been evaluated for placement in a residential re-entry center (“RRC”), this despite the fact that his projected release date is allegedly less than twelve months away. Respondent T.C. Outlaw (“Outlaw”) filed a response to Newton’s submissions at the behest of the Court. In the response, Outlaw maintained the following: The records of the Bureau of Prisons show that the Petitioner received an individualized needs assessment on March 26, 2012. ... The form shows that the Petitioner was recommended for 90-120 days of RRC placement, and the form is signed by the Petitioner. ... On June 27, 2012, the recommendation was modified to 151-180 days of RRC placement. ... The Petitioner signed the Rules of RRC placement on June 27, 2012. ... The Petitioner has received his RRC placement and has submitted no basis for the Court to reconsider its Order dismissing his Writ pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Document 24 at 1-2. The Court agrees; there is no basis for reconsidering the memorandum opinion and order, and accompanying judgment, dismissing Newton’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. His motion for reconsideration is therefore denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 17 day of July, 2012. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?