Hunter v. Cozza-Rhodes et al
ORDER denying 20 Motion for Reconsideration of Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 2/25/16.(dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02504-LTB
STEVEN M. HUNTER,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Applicant, Steven M. Hunter, filed pro se a AMotion for Reconsideration of
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus” (ECF No. 20), on February 11, 2016. The Court
construes the motion liberally as a motion for reconsideration of the February 5, 2016
Order of Dismissal. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (pro se filings
must be construed liberally); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Respondent filed a Response to the motion on February 17, 2016. (ECF No. 21).
A litigant subject to an adverse judgment, and who seeks reconsideration by the
district court of that adverse judgment, may Afile 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). Applicant filed the motion for reconsideration less than 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). Id.; see also 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). A motion to reconsider is appropriate where the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party=s position, or the controlling law. Id. (citing Van
Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243).
The Court dismissed this action without prejudice because Applicant failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241. Specifically, at
the time he initiated this action, Applicant had not filed an appeal of the Parole
Commission’s October 28, 2015 Notice of Action or the December 16, 2015 (Corrected)
Notice of Action with the National Appeals Board. In the dismissal order, the Court
observed that Mr. Hunter did not file a Reply to Respondent’s assertion of the affirmative
defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 17 at 5).
Mr. Hunter states in the motion for reconsideration that he never received a copy of
Respondent’s Preliminary Response. (ECF No. 20 at 1). He further states that he
appealed the December 16, 2015 (Corrected) Notice of Action on January 13, 2016, and
that he “is in the process of supplementing the . . . appeal through his attorney.” (Id. at
The Court finds that Mr. Hunter has not established any of the major grounds that
would justify reconsideration in his case. See Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at
1012. He was not prejudiced by the failure to receive a copy of the Preliminary
Response because he acknowledges in his motion that his appeal before the National
Appeals Board is pending. As such, the dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies was proper.
Once the briefing before the National Appeals Board is complete, the Board must
act within 60 days to affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Parole Commission.
See 28 C.F.R. § 2.26(c). Mr. Hunter may file a new § 2241 application after he receives
a decision from the National Appeals Board.
ORDERED that the AMotion for Reconsideration of Application for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus” (ECF No. 20), filed on February 11, 2016, which the Court construes liberally as
a motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), is DENIED.
Dated February 25, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
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?