NEAL v. OLIVER
Filing
52
Order Denying Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment - Robert David Neal sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of a prison disciplinary proceeding based on incident report no. 2131168. His petition for a writ of habeas corpus was den ied, with final judgment issued on June 27, 2013. At this point, a single post-judgment motion is pending, this being the petitioner's motion to alter or amend judgment filed with the clerk on June 27, 2013. The post-judgment motion to alter or amend judgment [dkt. 50] is denied. (See Order.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/22/2013. (RSF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
ROBERT DAVID NEAL,
Petitioner,
vs.
JOHN C. OLIVER,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:12-cv-194-JMS-WGH
Order Denying Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
Robert David Neal sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of a prison
disciplinary proceeding based on incident report no. 2131168. His petition for a writ of habeas
corpus was denied, with final judgment issued on June 27, 2013. At this point, a single
post-judgment motion is pending, this being the petitioner’s motion to alter or amend judgment
filed with the clerk on June 27, 2013.
Given the timing of the post-judgment motion referenced above relative to the entry of
final judgment, and given the argument set forth in such motion, the motion will be request, the
request seeks relief within the scope of Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is
thus treated as designated as a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e). See Borrero v. City of Chicago, 456
F.3d 698, 701-02 (7th Cir. 2006) (explaining that whether a motion filed within the time period
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).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows a party to move the court for reconsideration
of a judgment within 28 days following the entry of the judgment. Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney,
489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989), explains that Rule 59(e) encompasses reconsideration of matters
decided on the merits. A motion for reconsideration serves a very limited purpose in federal civil
litigation; it should be used only “to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987)
(quoting Keene Corp. v. Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F.Supp. 656 (N.D.Ill. 1982), aff'd 736 F.2d 388
(7th Cir. 1984)). “A ‘manifest error’ is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party.
It is the ‘wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.’” Oto
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987
F.Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D.Ill. 1997)).
There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. The arguments otherwise in the
motion to alter or amend judgment are feeble.
•
He first asserts that he should have prevailed because the respondent did not
acknowledge or respond to various discovery requests. He makes no legal
argument between this supposed portion of the record and his actual claim for
habeas corpus relief, but that is of no consequence. The court addressed this in its
Entry: “These [requests for admission] are not admissible in this action for the
following reasons: 1) they do not comply with Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; 2) the alleged admissions are from non-parties; and 3) no discovery was
authorized in this action (see Dkt. No. 21).” The Court noted in its Entry of
December 7, 2012, that “[d]iscovery has not been authorized in this action for
habeas corpus relief.” This information/ruling was supplied four months before the
return to show cause was filed and likewise with the petitioner’s replies, filed just a
few weeks after the return. The discovery argument is thus a non-issue at this point,
just as it was prior to the entry of final judgment.
•
The petitioner next argues that the Court erred by not permitting or compelling the
controversy to be addressed through arbitration. The convoluted saga supporting
this argument does not warrant review. The Court’s habeas jurisdiction cannot be
ceded elsewhere, with or without the parties’ supposed consent.
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 claims or the import of the expanded record, and likewise did not misapply the law to
those claims. The petitioner challenged a prison disciplinary proceeding. The scope of judicial
review of such proceedings is narrow. The pleadings and the expanded record showed that he
suffered non-custodial sanctions as a result of the proceeding. As the court’s Entry explained:
“Because Neal has failed to show that he suffered the imposition of “custody” as the result of the
sanctions in no. 2131168, he did not suffer the violation of his due process rights and hence is not
entitled to relief in this case. . Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644 (7th Cir. 2001) (when
no recognized liberty or property interest has been taken, the confining authority “is free to use any
procedures it chooses, or no procedures at all”). This reasoning is rock solid. See Wilkinson v.
Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005) (“[w]e reach the quest of what process is due only if the inmates
establish a constitutionally protected liberty interest.”). Accordingly, the post-judgment motion to
alter or amend judgment [dkt. 50] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
07/22/2013
Date: _________________
Distribution:
Robert David Neal #15151-180
Terre Haute USP
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808
Gerald.coraz@usdoj.gov
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?