EASLEY v. KNIGHT
Filing
14
ENTRY Discussing 9 Motion to Correct Errors - Given the timing of the 9 motion to correct errors relative to the entry of final judgment, and given the arguments set forth in such motion, the motion is treated as a motion to alter or amend j udgment. The post-judgment motion to correct errors and for relief from order 9 , treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment, is therefore denied. (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/18/2012. (copy to Petitioner via US Mail) (JKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
KENT A. EASLEY,
vs.
MRS. KNIGHT,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Respondent. )
1:12-cv-955-JMS-DML
Entry Discussing Motion to Correct Errors and for Relief from Order
I.
A.
This action in which Kent Easley sought a writ of habeas corpus invalidating
a prison disciplinary proceeding was dismissed on July 18, 2012, based on the
court’s determination that the Easley had not suffered the loss of a protected liberty
interest.
The entry of final judgment was followed by Easley’s motion to correct errors
and for relief from order, filed on August 2, 2012. This was within 28 days from the
entry of judgment on the clerk’s docket.
B.
Given the timing of the motion to correct errors relative to the entry of final
judgment, and given the arguments set forth in such motion, the motion is treated
as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. See Borrero v. City of Chicago, 456 F.3d 698, 701-02 (7th Cir.
2006) (explaining that whether a motion filed within 10 days of the entry of
judgment should be analyzed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure depends on the substance of the motion, not on the timing or label
affixed to it); Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989)(noting that
Rule 59(e) encompasses reconsideration of matters decided on the merits).
C.
The purpose of a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) is to
have the court reconsider matters "properly encompassed in a decision on the
merits." Osterneck v. Ernst and Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1988). Rule 59(e)
"authorizes relief when a moving party 'clearly establish[es] either a manifest error
of law or fact' or 'present[s] newly discovered evidence.'" Souter v. International
Union, 993 F.2d 595, 599 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v.
Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)).
There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. The court did not
misapprehend the petitioner’s habeas claims, nor did it misapply the law to those
claims in light of information he both described and documented. “Prisoners have a
liberty interest in their good-time credits and credit-earning class and thus must be
afforded due process before prison officials interfere with those rights.” Scruggs v.
Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007). Conversely, when no recognized liberty
or property interest has been taken, which is the case here, the confining authority
Ais free to use any procedures it chooses, or no procedures at all.@ Montgomery v.
Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644 (7th Cir. 2001). Neither in the original habeas
petitioner, nor in any subsequent filing, has Easley identified the loss of a protected
interest which affected either the fact or the anticipated duration of his
confinement. Accordingly, even the limited due process protections afforded by Wolff
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), and Superintendent of Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S.
445 (1985), were not triggered by the circumstances he relates and no further
inquiry was or is warranted.
The post-judgment motion to correct errors and for relief from order [9],
treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment, is therefore denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
09/18/2012
Date: _____________
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution:
Kent Easley
DOC # 103481
INDIANAPOLIS RE-ENTRY EDUCATIONAL FACILITY
401 North Randolph Street
Indianapolis, IN 46201
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?