Stiger v. Haynes
ORDER granting 34 Motion for Reconsideration re 29 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Clerk is directed to mail Petitioner a copy of the report and recommendations. The Petitioner has up to and including 14 days from the date of this order in which to file objections to the report and recommendations. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 10/7/13. (kpr)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
THOMAS HAROLD STIGER,
ANTHONY HAYNES, Warden,
FCI - Forrest City
By order entered July 31, 2013, the Court adopted the Proposed Findings and
Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe,
recommending that the petition in this case be dismissed with prejudice.1 The Court adopted
Judge Volpe’s recommendation after the time for filing objections had expired, and as noted in
order of dismissal, no objections were filed.
After dismissal, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 34), asking the
Court to vacate the judgment on the ground that the Court failed to mail him a copy of the
Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition. According to the electronic receipt
associated with the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, the Clerk of the Court
mailed Petitioner a copy of the filing on July 9, 2013, but it appears that Petitioner never
received the mailing.
Petitioner is an inmate at the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Forrest City Correctional
Institution, and he filed this action seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that he
has been eligible for Residential Re-entry Center (RRC) placement since September 21, 2012,
and for home confinement on March 22, 2013, but that he is being “unlawfully deprived” of his
RRC placement in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and the Second Chance Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3624.
Based on Petitioner’s representations, the Court treats his motion for reconsideration as a
motion for relief under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 Rule 60 lists several
specific grounds for relief from a final judgment and also provides that relief is available for
“any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).
Accepting Petitioner’s representation that he never received a copy of the recommended
disposition entered July 9, 2013, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall
mail Petitioner a copy of the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition entered in this
case on July 9, 2013 (ECF #29), along with a copy of this order. Petitioner has up to and
including fourteen (14) days from the date of this order in which to file objections to the
Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition. The Court will consider any timely-filed
objections in deciding Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal while the motion for reconsideration was pending.
Because the Court construes the motion for reconsideration as a motion for relief from judgment
under Rule 60, the notice of appeal does not prevent the Court from considering Petitioner’s
post-judgment motion, and the notice of appeal will become effective only after the Court
disposes of Petitioner’s motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4).
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?