Williams v. Superintendent

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER, denying 4 MOTION for relief from order filed by Roosevelt Williams.. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 1/5/12. (smp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ROOSEVELT WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, Indiana
State Prison,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:11-CV-290 PS

OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Roosevelt Williams, a prisoner confined at the Indiana State Prison,
submitted a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging
the loss of earned credit time in a prison disciplinary proceeding [DE 1]. The Court
reviewed Williams’s petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases, and denied him leave to proceed on ground three in which he asserted that he was
denied an impartial decision-maker [DE 3].
The Petitioner filed a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e), asking the Court to reinstate this ground [DE 4]. Because no final judgment has
been entered in this case, the Court will treat the Petitioner’s submission as a Motion for
Relief from Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.
Altering or amending judgment under Rule 59(e) is permissible when there is
newly discovered evidence or there has been a manifest error of law or fact.
Vacating a judgment under Rule 60(b) is permissible for a variety of reasons,
including mistake, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence and fraud.
While the two rules have similarities, “Rule 60(b) relief is an extraordinary
remedy and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Rule 59(e), by
contrast, requires that the movant “clearly establish” one of the aforementioned
grounds for relief.

Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
The Petitioner’s submissions do not state any specific reasons why the Court’s Rule 4
order dismissing ground three of his petition was in error, and he has not established any ground
for relief. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Petitioner’s motion for relief from order.
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES the Petitioner’s motion for relief from
order [DE 4].
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: January 5, 2012
s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2