Santiago v. Secretary, DOC et al
OPINION AND ORDER re: granting 17 MOTION for Reconsideration re 15 Order, vacating 15 Order, vacating 16 Judgment - prisoner. The Clerk of Court shall reopen this case and refer 12 Affidavit of indigency to the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 2/9/2018. (SLU)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
Case No: 2:17-cv-328-FtM-38MRM
SECRETARY, DOC and FLORIDA
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Doc. 17) filed on January 10, 2018. Petitioner requests the Court to reconsider its
December 29, 2017, Opinion and Order (Doc. 15) dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Upon review of the file and applicable
law, the Court finds Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is due to be granted.
The Court construes Petitioner’s Motion as brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e). The decision to grant a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is within the
sound discretion of the trial court. Bell v. Florida Highway Patrol, 598 F. App’x 473, (11th
Cir. Dec. 11, 2014). Grounds warranting the grant of a Rule 59(e) motion include newly
Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or
websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are
cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By
allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve,
or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites.
Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink.
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does
not affect the opinion of the Court.
discovered evidence and the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007).
On December 29, 2017, the Court dismissed Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus, without prejudice, finding that Petitioner had failed to respond to the
Court’s November 9, 2017, Order and December 6, 2017, Order, which directed Petitioner
to provide a certified copy of his prisoner account. Doc. 15 at 1. Petitioner contends that
he timely complied with the Court’s Orders and attaches as an exhibit to his Motion a
copy of his Affidavit of Indigence and Inmate Trust Fund Account that he claims he
delivered to correctional officials for mailing. Doc. 17-1. The Affidavit of Indigence and
Inmate Trust Fund Account are date-stamped as being delivered to Wakulla Correctional
Institution for mailing on November 29, 2017. Id. at 7. Upon further review of the Court’s
docket, the Court finds that Petitioner’s Affidavit of Indigence and Inmate Trust Fund
Account were docketed on December 5, 2017, and indeed were date-stamped as being
delivered to correctional officials on November 29, 2017. See Doc. 12. Consequently,
the Court finds that the Court erred in finding that Petitioner did not timely comply with the
Accordingly, it is now
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 17) is GRANTED, and the
Court’s Order dated December 29, 2017 (Doc. 15) and Judgment entered January 2,
2018 (Doc. 16) are VACATED.
The Clerk of Court shall reopen this case and refer Petitioner’s Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 12) to the Magistrate Judge.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 9th day of February, 2018.
Copies: All Parties of Record
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?