Filing 11

ORDER denying 10 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration - The petitioner's motion to reconsider 10 is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment and as so understood is denied. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/14/2012. (copy to Petitioner via US Mail) (JKS)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA BRIAN CARTER, Petitioner, vs. WARDEN, FCI TERRE HAUTE, IN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:12-cv-432-JMS-TAB ENTRY The petitioner’s motion to reconsider [10] is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment and as so understood is denied. The reason for this ruling is that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly dismissed for the reasons explained in the Entry of April 6, 2012. Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006) (AAltering or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) is permissible when there is newly discovered evidence or there has been a manifest error of law or fact.@)(citing Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000)). IT IS SO ORDERED. 05/14/2012 Date: __________________ Distribution: Brian Carter 13851-424 United States Penitentiary Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. Box 33 Terre Haute, IN 47808 _______________________________ Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

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?