JASKE v. BROWN

Filing 22

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration in regards to 20 Closed Judgment. A motion to reconsider is designed to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. The most that petitioner has shown through his motion to reconsider is that at an unknown time in the future with a future institutional record which is unknowable at this time, unknown members of the parole board may learn of the disciplinary matters identified in this case and reach the conclusion because of such matters that the petitioner is not a suitable candidate for parole. However, this possibility is too tenuous to satisfy the custody requirement. Accordingly, petitioner's motion for reconsideration is denied. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/2/2014. (AH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
ROGER JASKE,
Petitioner,
vs.
DICK BROWN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-126-JMS-WGH

Entry
A motion to reconsider is designed to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence. Publishers Resource, Inc. v. Walker-Davis Publications, Inc., 762
F.2d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 1985). For example, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate when: (1)
a court has patently misunderstood a party; (2) a court has made a decision outside the adversarial
issues presented; (3) a court has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension; or (4) a change
in the law or facts has occurred since the submission of the issue. On the other hand, a motion for
reconsideration is an "improper vehicle to introduce evidence previously available or to tender
new legal theories." Bally Export Corp. v. Balicar, Ltd., 804 F.2d 398, 404 (7th Cir. 1986).
The petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Entry and Order Dismissing Action issued on
September 11, 2014. The most that petitioner has shown through his motion to reconsider is that
at an unknown time in the future with a future institutional record which is unknowable at this
time, unknown members of the parole board may learn of the disciplinary matters identified in this
case and reach the conclusion because of such matters that the petitioner is not a suitable candidate
for parole. However, this possibility is too tenuous to satisfy the custody requirement, Higgason
v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 809 (7th Cir. 1996)(if Athe State's action will inevitably affect the duration

of [the] sentence,@ there is due process protection, but there is no such protection for action that
merely might affect the duration of the sentence")(citing Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2302
(1995)). Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration [dkt. 21] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 2, 2014
Date: _________________________
Distribution:
Electronically Registered Counsel
ROGER JASKE
1983
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
Electronic Filing Participant – Court Only

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