Scott v. Buena Vista Correctional Center

Filing 25

ORDER denying 24 Motion for Reconsideration, It is FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Scotts request for leave to amend Doc. No. 24 , filed on September 2, 2011, is DENIED. by Judge William J. Martinez on 9/9/2011.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00361-WJM
LYNN EUGENE SCOTT,
Applicant,
v.
WARDEN OF THE BUENA VISTA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Respondent.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND REQUEST TO AMEND

Applicant, Lynne Eugene Scott, a Colorado state prisoner, filed pro se a Motion
for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 24) on September 2, 2011. Mr. Scott asks the Court to
reconsider the July 25, 2011 Order Dismissing his Application for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and to allow him to amend the Application. The
Court must construe Applicant’s filings liberally because Mr. Scott is a pro se litigant.
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1110 (10th Cir. 1991). The Motion for Reconsideration and the request to amend will be
denied for the reasons stated below.
The Court first addresses Mr. Scott’s Motion for Reconsideration. A litigant
subject to an adverse judgment, and who seeks reconsideration by the district court of
that adverse judgment, may “file either a motion to alter or amend the judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the judgment pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.

1991). Mr. Scott filed the Motion for Reconsideration within twenty-eight days after the
Order of Dismissal and the Judgment were entered in the instant action. The Court,
therefore, finds that the Motion for Reconsideration is filed pursuant to Rule 59(e). See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
The three major grounds that justify reconsideration are: (1) an intervening
change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Servants of the Paraclete v. Does,
204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Upon review of the motion for reconsideration
and the entire file, the Court concludes that Mr. Scott fails to demonstrate that any of the
grounds justifying reconsideration exist in his case.
Mr. Scott filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 challenging the validity of a February 2008 prison disciplinary conviction that
resulted in the postponement of his reparole date from May 12, 2008 to August 5, 2008.
Respondents move to dismiss the Application as moot. On August 25, 2011, the Court
entered an Order dismissing the § 2241 Application for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The Court agreed with Respondents that the Application was moot
because there was no effectual relief the Court could grant on Petitioner’s claim. See
United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1323 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Smith v. Plati, 258
F.3d 1167, 1179 (10th Cir. 2001)). The Court determined that once Applicant was
reparoled in August 2008, he no longer had a redressable injury arising from the
postponement. To present a live case or controversy for purposes of Article III, Mr.
Scott therefore was compelled to articulate continuing “collateral consequences” of the

2

postponed reparole date. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1998). He failed to
do so and the Court dismissed his Application.
Mr. Scott now moves for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal order, but he
does not demonstrate an intervening change in the controlling law, the availability of
new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See
Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. Instead, Applicant raises the same
arguments that were rejected by the Court previously.
Mr. Scott also argues that his constitutional challenge to the February 2008
prison disciplinary proceeding is not moot because if the Court were to declare the
prison disciplinary conviction invalid and order it expunged, he could then proceed
against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without running afoul of Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). This argument lacks merit. The federal
district court is authorized to issue the writ of habeas corpus only when the petitioner is
“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see also Boutwell v. Keating, 399 F.3d 1203, 1209 (10th Cir. 2005)
(an application for habeas relief may be granted only “when the remedy requested
would result in the prisoner’s immediate or speedier release from . . . confinement.”).
The writ of habeas corpus does not lie to provide an aggrieved prisoner with a viable
civil rights suit against prison officials.
Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration will be denied because Mr. Scott has
not asserted any of the major grounds that would justify reconsideration in his case.
See Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.

3

Mr. Scott also seeks leave to amend his § 2241 Application to assert a new claim
that the Colorado Department of Corrections is refusing to apply good time credits
against his sentence, which has resulted in a longer term of incarceration than
authorized under state law, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process
rights. See Motion for Reconsideration, at 5-6. Applicant represents that he has
exhausted state court remedies for this claim as of August 2, 2011. Id. Because the
proposed amended claim is much broader than the limited claim asserted in the
Application, and there are no timeliness concerns at this time, the Court will deny the
motion to amend without prejudice. Mr. Scott may initiate a new civil action and file an
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asserting his
proposed amended claim. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 24), filed on
September 2, 2011, is DENIED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Scott’s request for leave to amend (Doc. No. 24),
filed on September 2, 2011, is DENIED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Scott may obtain the court-approved Application
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (with the assistance of his
case manager or the facility’s legal assistant), along with the applicable instructions, at
www.cod.uscourts.gov.

4

Dated this 9th day of September, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

_______________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

5