JOHNSON v. BUSS et al

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING 6 Motion for Reconsideration. Because of its timing, Therefore, Johnsons motion to reconsider must be treated as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). Because of its content, the motion to reconsider does not support relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). That motion (dkt 6) is therefore denied. cm. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 11/30/2010. (CKM)

Download PDF
JOHNSON v. BUSS et al Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA CHARLES E. JOHNSON, Petitioner, vs. EDWIN G. BUSS, WENDY KNIGHT, C.A PENFOLD, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:10-cv-1196-SEB-TAB ENTRY This action for habeas corpus relief brought by Charles E. Johnson challenging the prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. IYC 10-04-04-256 was dismissed with prejudice on September 30, 2010, based on the court's finding from the habeas petition itself that Johnson's claims rest solely on alleged violations of prison regulations and policies and that a claim of this nature does not support federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). Johnson has filed a motion for reconsideration. That motion was filed with the Clerk on November 19, 2010, more than 28 days after the entry of judgment on the clerk's docket. Accordingly, that motion must be treated as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hope v. United States, 43 F.3d 1140, 1142 (7th Cir.1994) (a motion to alter or amend a judgment not timely under Rule 59(e) automatically becomes a Rule 60(b) motion). However, there is a problem with treating the motion to reconsider under Rule 60(b). The problem is that Johnson argues that the court committed a legal error in dismissing the habeas petition. Rule 60(b) specifies the grounds on which relief can be authorized. This list is exclusive. "A legal error is not one of the specified grounds for [a 60(b) motion]. In fact, it is a forbidden ground." Marques v. FRB, 286 F.3d 1014, 1018-19 (7th Cir. 2002). Because of its timing, therefore, Johnson's motion to reconsider must be treated as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). Because of its content, the motion to reconsider does not support relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). That motion (dkt 6) is therefore denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 11/30/2010 _______________________________ SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Dockets.Justia.com Distribution: Charles E. Johnson #850481 Plainfield Correctional Facility Inmate Mail/Parcels 727 Moon Rd. Plainfield, IN 46168

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?