REED v. WARDEN

Filing 23

ENTRY - Mr. Reed's motion to amend his petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 21 ), treated as a motion for relief from judgment, is denied. **SEE ENTRY** Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/11/2015. (MGG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JOSEPH D. REED,
Petitioner,
vs.
STANLEY KNIGHT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:13-cv-1282-TWP-MJD

Entry Denying Motion to Amend Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Presently pending before the Court is Petitioner Joseph Reed’s motion to amend his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus. (Dkt. 21). Mr. Reed filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with
this Court on August 12, 2013. The Court dismissed this action without prejudice on March 5,
2014, because Mr. Reed had failed to exhaust his state court remedies. The Court entered final
judgment on that date. Mr. Reed filed the instant motion to amend his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus on February 27, 2015, fifty-one weeks after the entry of final judgment.
A litigant subject to an adverse judgment, and who seeks reconsideration by the district
court of that adverse judgment, may “file either a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b).” Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). Mr. Reed’s postjudgment motion was filed more than 28 calendar days after the entry of judgment, and therefore
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, 1143 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing United
States v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 299, 301 (7th Cir. 1992)). Based on the foregoing, and despite the
label it has been given, the motion to amend the petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be treated
as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b).

Mr. Reed cannot use a Rule 60(b) motion to reinstate his case when, as here, a case is
dismissed without prejudice. Instead, “after a dismissal without prejudice, the plaintiff can
resurrect his lawsuit only by filing a new complaint.” U.S. v. Ligas, 549 F.3d 497, 503 (7th Cir.
2008) (noting that “[t]here is a difference between dismissing a suit without prejudice and
dismissing a suit with leave to reinstate”). Accordingly, Mr. Reed’s motion to amend his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 21), treated as a motion for relief from judgment, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 3/11/2015

Distribution:
JOSEPH D. REED
984710
PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1946 West U.S. Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135