SCRUGGS v. SUPERINTENDENT

Filing 30

Entry Discussing Selected Matters - There was no manifest error of law or fact in this case. The court did not misapprehend the petitioner's claim, nor did it misapply the law to that claim in finding that the habeas petition was filed lon g after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the motion to alter or amend judgment (Dkt 23) is DENIED. Scruggs has failed to make a showing that reasonable jurists could disagree as to the conclusion that the habeas petition was not timely filed. His renewed motion for issuance of a certificate of appealability (Dkt 26) is therefore DENIED for the reasons explained on page 4 of the Entry filed on January 4, 2016. (See Dkt. 20). Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/29/2016. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

KEITH SCRUGGS,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No: 1:15-cv-893-TWP-MJD

Entry Discussing Selected Matters
I.
The clerk shall terminate the representation of Attorney Comstock as counsel for the
petitioner.
The clerk shall also note the petitioner’s address as shown in the distribution portion of
this Entry.
II.
Mr. Scruggs has filed a pleading titled Motion to Show Cause Objection to Respondent’s
Notice of Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 23). In the pleading, Mr. Scruggs objects to what he
refers to as the Report and Recommendation. There was no such document issued in this case, nor
was there any referral of a dispositive matter to the Magistrate Judge.
Looking beyond its title, and based on its timing relative to the entry of final judgment and
its content, Scruggs’ objection is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment. Based on its
timing, the plaintiff’s 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, 70102 (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 a judgment under Rule 59(e) is to ask the court
to reconsider matters “properly encompassed in a decision on the merits.” Osterneck v. Ernst &
Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989). “A Rule 59(e) motion will be successful only where the
movant clearly establishes: (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that
newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.” Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722
F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
There was no manifest error of law or fact in this case. The court did not misapprehend
the petitioner’s claim, nor did it misapply the law to that claim in finding that the habeas petition
was filed long after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the motion to alter or
amend judgment (Dkt 23) is DENIED.
III.
Mr. Scruggs has also filed a Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Dkt. 26).
Mr. Scruggs was convicted in 1999 of two counts of murder and one count of carrying a
handgun without a license. He sought a writ of habeas corpus in this court. As noted above, his
habeas petition was denied based on it having been filed long after the expiration of the statute of
limitations. Mr. Scruggs has filed a notice of appeal, which has been processed, and he has filed a
renewed motion for a certificate of appealability.
In ruling on the habeas petition, the Court also denied a certificate of appealability based
on its finding that Scruggs failed to show that reasonable jurists would find Ait debatable whether
the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right@ and Adebatable whether [this
court] was correct in its procedural ruling.@ Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Scruggs

has failed to make a showing that reasonable jurists could disagree as to the conclusion that the
habeas petition was not timely filed. His renewed motion for issuance of a certificate of
appealability (Dkt 26) is therefore DENIED for the reasons explained on page 4 of the Entry filed
on January 4, 2016. (See Dkt. 20).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 1/29/2016

Distribution:
Electronically Registered Counsel
Keith Scruggs
DOC # 994428
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064