HARPER v. BROWN

Filing 23

ORDER denying 22 Motion for Reconsideration re 21 Closed Judgment. **SEE ORDER** Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/8/2015. (AH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

CHAS HARPER
Petitioner,
vs.
DICK BROWN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 2:14-cv-0306-WTL-MJD

Entry Denying Motion to Reconsider
A litigant subject to an adverse judgment who seeks reconsideration by the district court
of that adverse judgment may “file either a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).”
Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). In Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517
F.3d 489, 493–94 (7th Cir. 2008), the Court of Appeals declared that district courts should analyze
postjudgment motions based on their substance: “whether a motion . . . should be analyzed under
Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) depends on the substance of the motion, not on the timing or label affixed
to it.” Based on the timing and content of his post-judgment motion to reconsider, habeas petitioner
Chas Harper, a state prisoner, has opted for the Rule 59(e) route with respect to the final judgment
entered on the clerk’s docket on May 26, 2015.
A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed within 28 calendar days from the entry of judgment on
the clerk’s docket. No extension of time for the filing of such a motion is permitted. See Winston
Network, Inc. v. Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co., 944 F.2d 1351, 1362 (7th Cir. 1991); Vukadinovich
v. McCarthy, 901 F.2d 1439, 1445 (7th Cir. 1990).

The Court denied Harper’s bid for habeas relief based on its findings that the state courts’
resolution of Harper’s claims did not satisfy the stringent standard of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786 (2011)(“A state court’s determination that a claim lacks
merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on the
correctness of the state court’s decision.”)(quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664
(2004)). Harper seeks reconsideration, arguing that this court erred in its analysis under Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
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.” Osterneck v. Ernst and
Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1988). “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 omitted). A manifest error of law under Rule 59(e) means
the “wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Anderson
v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 759 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. “[T]he petitioner bears the burden
of proving his habeas claim,” Quintana v. Chandler, 723 F.3d 849, 854 (7th Cir. 2013). He failed
to meet that burden. The Court did not misapprehend the petitioner’s claims, nor did it misapply
the law to those claims in light of the underlying record in finding that the petitioner was not
entitled to relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). His motion to reconsider, in fact, misstates the
standard this court was compelled to employ under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). That is, “under AEDPA, federal courts do not independently analyze the
petitioner's claims; federal courts are limited to reviewing the relevant state court ruling on the

claims.” Rever v. Acevedo, 590 F.3d 533, 536 (7th Cir. 2010). As one court has explained, it is his
court’s obligation to focus “on the state court decision that previously addressed the claims rather
than the petitioner’s freestanding claims themselves.” McLee v. Angelone, 967 F.Supp. 152, 156
(E.D.Va. 1997). And in conducting that analysis, there was not error. Accordingly, the motion to
reconsider, treated as a motion alter or amend judgment [dkt 22], is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 6/8/15

Distribution:
Chas J. Harper
DOC #953608
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
Electronic Filing Participant – Court Only
Electronically registered counsel

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana