BATES v. WARDEN, FCI-TERRE HAUTE et al

Filing 10

Entry Discussing Motion to Reconsider and Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - the motion to reconsider 8 , treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment, is denied. Bates seeks leave to file an amended peti tion for a writ of habeas corpus. However, once judgment was entered, Bates no longer had any right to file an amended pleading. Bates' motion for leave to file an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus 9 is denied. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/8/2011.(copy to petitioner via U. S. mail) (VS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

THOMAS L. BATES,
Petitioner,
vs.
CHARLES L. LOCKETT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-153-JMS-WGH

Entry Discussing Motion to Reconsider and Motion for
Leave to File Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
I.
This cause is before the court on the petitioner’s motion to reconsider pertaining to
the Judgment dismissing the action entered on the clerk=s docket on July 21, 2011. Given
the timing of the petitioner’s motion, and given the arguments set forth in such motion, the
motion is treated as a motion 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);
Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989)(noting that Rule 59(e)
encompasses reconsideration of matters decided on the merits).
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." Id.
“Rule 59(e) allows a court to amend a judgment only if the petitioner can demonstrate a
manifest error of law or present newly discovered evidence.” Heyde v. Pittenger, 633 F.3d
512, 521 (7th Cir. 2011).
There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. The court did not
misapprehend the petitioner’s claims or the circumstances associated with the proper
computation of the statute of limitations, nor did it misapply the law to those claims in light
of the allegations and the underlying criminal record. Accordingly, the motion to
reconsider [8], treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment, is denied.

II.
Bates seeks leave to file an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
However, once judgment was entered, Bates no longer had any right to file an amended
pleading. See Weiss v. Cooley, 230 F.3d 1027, 1034 (7th Cir. 2000); Camp v. Gregory, 67
F.3d 1286, 1289 (7th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Bates’ motion for leave to file an amended
petition for a writ of habeas corpus [9] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

08/08/2011

_______________________________

Distribution:
Thomas L. Bates
# 99853-024
Terre Haute - FCI
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808

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