Saintignon v. Superintendent
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 28 MOTION for Reconsideration re 26 Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 3/12/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ksp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DANNY L. SAINTIGNON,
CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-462 PPS
OPINION AND ORDER
Danny L. Saintignon, a prisoner without a lawyer, has filed a motion to
reconsider the order denying his petition for habeas relief. Considering the timing and
the substance of the motion, I construe it as a motion to alter or amend judgment under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 493 (7th Cir. 2008). “A court
may grant a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment if the movant presents
newly discovered evidence that was not available at the time of trial or if the movant
points to evidence in the record that clearly establishes a manifest error of law or fact.”
Matter of Prince, 85 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 1996); Deutsch v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 983 F.2d
741 (7th Cir. 1993).
Saintignon’s habeas petition was dismissed because it was not filed within the
one-year limitations period as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). ECF 26. Saintignon
argues that I should excuse the untimely nature of the petition because his post1
conviction relief counsel did not advise him of the one-year limitations period, which I
construe as an equitable tolling argument. “[A] petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling
only if he shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some
extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Holland v.
Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). However, “a garden variety claim of excusable neglect,
such as a simple miscalculation that leads a lawyer to miss a filing deadline, does not
warrant equitable tolling.” Id. at 651; Carpenter v. Douma, 840 F.3d 867, 872 (7th Cir.
2016). Similarly, the failure of post-conviction relief counsel to advise Saintignon of the
one-year limitations period for federal habeas proceedings does not constitute an
extraordinary circumstance. Therefore, Saintignon has not provided a sufficient basis
for allowing his untimely petition to proceed.
Saintignon also argues that I should reconsider the dismissal because he is
seeking DNA testing to prove that he is actually innocent and because the prosecution
introduced false evidence against him at trial. Though these arguments could excuse
procedural bar or provide a substantive basis for habeas relief, they do not address the
issue of timeliness. In sum, Saintignon has not shown a mistake of law or fact with
respect to my timeliness ruling, nor has he presented newly discovered evidence.
For these reasons, the court DENIES the motion to reconsider (ECF 26).
SO ORDERED on March 12, 2018.
/s/ Philip P. Simon
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?