Whitfield v. Althoff et al
Filing
56
OPINION: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied 53 . Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 6/5/2015. (ME, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 05 June, 2015 03:51:02 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
BENYEHUDAH WHITFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC ALTHOFF, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
13-CV-3192
OPINION
RICHARD MILLS, U.S. District Judge:
On January 7, 2015, summary judgment was granted to
Defendants in this case. The Court held that Plaintiff’s claims are
barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (7th Cir. 1994) because
Plaintiff failed to timely and properly pursue his available state
court remedies to challenge three disciplinary reports in which
Plaintiff lost good time. The Court will not repeat that order here
except as necessary to address Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider.
Plaintiff brings his motion under both Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and
Page 1 of 4
60(b), but 59(e) governs since Plaintiff filed his motion within 28
days of the judgment. See Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722
F.3d 939, 953 (7th Cir. 2013). A “‘manifest error of law or fact’” or
“‘newly discovered evidence’” warrant relief under Rule 59(e). Id. at
954 (quoted cite omitted).
Plaintiff argues that “any claim of procedural default on the
ground asserted by this Court is an affirmative defense which
should not be raised by the Court but should have been raised by
the respondents in Whitfield v. Gaetz, 09-MR-80 and Whitfield v.
Jackson, 11-CV-3061.” (d/e 53, para. 3.) Case 09-MR-80 was
Plaintiff’s state habeas action, which was dismissed by the state
court with prejudice on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Case
11-CV-3061 was Plaintiff’s federal habeas action, which was
dismissed as moot when Plaintiff was released from prison.
The Court does not understand Plaintiff’s waiver argument.
Defendants had a right to pursue a Heck defense in this case,
regardless of what happened in Plaintiff’s other cases. The
Defendants remaining in this action were not Defendants in 09-MR80 or 11-3061. The Court also notes that the defendants in both of
Plaintiff’s habeas cases did assert their available defenses, resulting
Page 2 of 4
in dismissal of those cases. In short, there was no waiver of any
defenses in this case or the habeas cases.
Plaintiff also argues that he did not procedurally default his
state court remedies because the state court in 09-MR-80
dismissed Plaintiff’s habeas action with prejudice. He contends
that the dismissal with prejudice precluded him from refiling his
action as a state mandamus action. However, as the Court
explained in the summary judgment order, the “state court’s denial
of Plaintiff’s request [for habeas] mean[t] only that Plaintiff’s
procedural error was not excused by the state court. Mandamus
remained an available remedy.” (d/e 51, p. 9)(cite omitted). The
dismissal with prejudice precluded Plaintiff from filing another state
habeas petition but not from filing a mandamus action.
The Court remains of the opinion that no grounds exist to
excuse Plaintiff from timely and properly pursuing his state court
remedies. Burd v. Sessler, 702 F.3d 429, 436 (7th Cir. 2012)(Heck
bars former prisoner’s action if he “could have pursued collateral
relief [in prison] but failed to do so in a timely manner.”).
Accordingly, this case remains closed.
Page 3 of 4
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration is denied (53).
ENTER: 6/5/2015
FOR THE COURT:
s/Richard Mills
RICHARD MILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 4 of 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?