BRIGGS v. USA

Filing 10

Entry Denying Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment - There was no manifest error of law or fact in this case. The Court did not misapprehend the petitioner's claims, nor did it misapply the law to those claims in finding that dismissal was required. Accordingly, the motion to alter or amend judgment [dkt. 9] is denied. Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/11/2016. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JUSTIN ALLEN BRIGGS,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-cv-01111-TWP-DML

Entry Denying Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
Based on its timing, the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration filed on November 12, 2015,
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 the time frame contemplated by Rule 59(e) 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).
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)).

Relief through a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary remed[y]
reserved for the exceptional case.” Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008). A Rule
59(e) motion may be used “to draw the district court’s attention to a manifest error of law or fact
or to newly discovered evidence.” United States v. Resnick, 594 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2010). A
“manifest error” means “wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling
precedent.” Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000).
There was no manifest error of law or fact in this case. The Court did not misapprehend
the petitioner’s claims, nor did it misapply the law to those claims in finding that dismissal was
required. Accordingly, the motion to alter or amend judgment [dkt. 9] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 2/11/2016

Distribution:
Electronically Registered Counsel
Justin Allen Briggs
Elkton-FCI
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. Box 10
Lisbon, OH 44432