KIDERLEN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 79

ENTRY Concerning Selected Matters - Copy of petitioner's statement filed on January 27, 2012 73 , shall be included with the distribution of this Entry. The post-judgment statement 73 , treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment, is denied. Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/13/2012.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
STEVEN D. KIDERLEN,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
)
WARDEN, United States Penitentiary,)
)
Respondent.
)

No. 2:11-cv-127-JMS-DKL

Entry Concerning Selected Matters
I.
A copy of the petitioner’s statement filed on January 27, 2012 [73], shall be
included with the distribution of this Entry.
II.
The petitioner appears to be dissatisfied with the disposition of this action for
habeas corpus relief and demands his release. His filing was made within 28 days
from the entry of final judgment on January 23, 2012. When considered in
conjunction with its content, his statement 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).
Rule 59(e) encompasses reconsideration of matters decided on the merits.
Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989). “Altering or amending a
judgment under Rule 59(e) is permissible when there is newly discovered evidence
or there has been a manifest error of law or fact.” Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433
F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs.,
233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000)).
There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. See Russell v. Delco
Remy Div. of General Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir. 1995). The court did
not misapprehend the petitioner’s habeas claims or the background associated with

his conviction in the Eastern District of Missouri. The court likewise did not
misapply the law to those claims in light of the expanded record. Additionally, the
petitioner does not rely on new evidence or on a change in the law. Accordingly, the
post-judgment statement [73], treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment, is
denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

02/13/2012
Date: __________________
Distribution:
Steven D. Kiderlen
No. 32711-044
United States Penitentiary
P.O. Box 019001
Atwater, CA 95301
Gerald A. Coraz
United States Attorney’s Office
[e-mail]

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana