ARD v. SMITH

Filing 42

Order Denying Post-Judgment Motions - Petitioner Billy Ard, a state prisoner, filed this action for habeas corpus relief asserting that a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISF 15-06-304was tainted with constitutional error. After co nsideration of the pleadings and the expanded record, the Court concluded otherwise and therefore denied Ard's petition. Ard filed two motions following the entry of final judgment. These are (1) his motion for reconsideration filed on Octobe r 4, 2016, and (2) his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for an evidentiary hearing filed on September 23, 2016. The motion for reconsideration filed on October 4, 2016, treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment, [dkt 41 ] is denied. Ard's motion to reconsider the denial of his motion for an evidentiary hearing [dkt 39 ] is denied. (See Order.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 10/11/2016. (RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

BILLY ARD,
Petitioner,
vs.
MARK SEVIER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-00277-WTL-DKL

Order Denying Post-Judgment Motions
Petitioner Billy Ard, a state prisoner, filed this action for habeas corpus relief asserting that
a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISF 15-06-304was tainted with constitutional
error. After consideration of the pleadings and the expanded record, the Court concluded otherwise
and therefore denied Ard’s petition. Ard filed two motions following the entry of final judgment.
These are (1) his motion for reconsideration filed on October 4, 2016, and (2) his motion for
reconsideration of the denial of his motion for an evidentiary hearing filed on September 23, 2016.
I.
Final judgment was entered in this action for habeas corpus relief on September 26, 2016.
Based on the timing and the content of Ard’s motion for reconsideration filed on October 4, 2016,
the motion is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment. See Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d
489, 493 (7th Cir. 2008)(“whether a motion filed within [28] days of the entry of judgment 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”)(emphasis in original) (citing Borrero v. City of Chicago, 456 F.3d
698, 701–02 (7th Cir. 2006)).
Relief through a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary remed[y]
reserved for the exceptional case.” Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008). 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). Rule 59(e) “authorizes relief when a moving party ‘clearly establish[es]
either a manifest error of law or fact’ or ‘present[s] newly discovered evidence.’” Souter v.
International Union, 993 F.2d 595, 599 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v.
Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)). A “manifest error” means “wholesale disregard,
misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000).
There was no manifest error of law or fact in this case. The court did not misapprehend
Ard’s claims and did not misapply the law to those claims. Ard did not challenge the sufficiency
of the evidence and there was no violation of the limited procedural protections prescribed in Wolff
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration filed on October
4, 2016, treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment, [dkt 41] is denied.
II.
In the course of this case, the Court considered and denied Ard’s motion for an evidentiary
hearing. He seeks reconsideration of that ruling. Of course, since final judgment has been entered
and the motion to alter or amend judgment has been denied, there is no longer a “case” to develop
through an evidentiary hearing or in any other fashion. Apart from this, such a step is only

necessary when a more extensive factual record must be compiled to decide an issue. See Newell
v. Hanks, 283 F.3d 827, 838 (7th Cir. 2002). That is not the case here. Accordingly, Ard’s motion
to reconsider the denial of his motion for an evidentiary hearing [dkt 39] is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________
Date: 10/11/16

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

Distribution:
Electronically registered counsel
Billy Ard, #956195, Westville Correctional Facility, Inmate Mail/Parcels, 5501 South 1100
West, Westville, IN 46391