BRIGGS v. USA

Filing 12

Entry Discussing Treatment of Motion to Amend Judgment - Because the first step in such a situation is a procedural one, the clerk shall process the motion as a new civil action in the Indianapolis Division. The motion shall be the initial pleadin g in the newly opened action and shall be re-docketed there as the motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A copy of this Entry shall likewise be docketed in the new action. The new action shall have a NOS of 510 and a cause of action code of 28:2255. In the new action, Justin Allen Briggs shall be the petitioner and the United States shall be the respondent. The motion (Dkt. 11] as filed in this action is DENIED. Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/16/2016. (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 Discussing Treatment of Motion to Amend Judgment
I.
This matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s motion to amend judgment filed on
March 10, 2016 (hereafter “motion”). (Dkt. 11). For the reasons stated below the motion is
DENIED.
This action commenced on July 2, 2014 when Petitioner Justin Allen Briggs challenged
the validity of a conviction through his motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mr. Briggs
§ 2255 motion was denied and Judgment was entered on behalf of Respondent on January 12,
2016. (Dkt. 8). Based on the timing of the instant motion, it is treated as a motion for relief from
the judgment. This treatment is required because the date the motion was signed, March 7, 2016,
which was clearly outside the 28-calendar day filing limit for a motion to alter or amend judgment
pursuant to Rule 59(e). See Kiswani v. Phoenix Sec. Agency, Inc., 584 F.3d 741, 742 43 (7th Cir.
2009).
But this treatment leads to another question. “When faced with a Rule 60(b) motion filed
in response to the denial of a petition for habeas relief, the district court must first determine

whether the motion “should be treated as a second or successive habeas petition [or whether] it
should be treated as a ‘true’ 60(b) motion.” Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213, 1215 (10th Cir.
2006). The former, being a motion that “add[s] a new ground for relief” or that “attacks the federal
court's previous resolution of a claim on the merits,” presents a claim for habeas relief. Gonzalez
v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005).
The motion sets forth the petitioner’s renewed argument that his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
should have been granted because his claims are meritorious. The motion is thus entirely within
the scope of the rule just cited. Gonzalez dictates, in turn, that a Rule 60(b) motion in a collateral
proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that attacks a district court’s decision “on the merits” must be
treated as a new “application” for collateral review. See United States v. Carraway, 478 F.3d 845,
849 (7th Cir. 2007).
II.
Because the first step in such a situation is a procedural one, the clerk shall process the
motion as a new civil action in the Indianapolis Division. The motion shall be the initial pleading
in the newly opened action and shall be re-docketed there as the motion for relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255. A copy of this Entry shall likewise be docketed in the new action.
The new action shall have a NOS of 510 and a cause of action code of 28:2255. In the new
action, Justin Allen Briggs shall be the petitioner and the United States shall be the respondent.
The motion (Dkt. 11] as filed in this action is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 3/16/2016

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