Tatum (ID 81154) v. Schnurr

Filing 79

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: The Motion by Petitioner for Extension of Time to File Response to Memorandum Decision (Doc. 78 ) is denied. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 11/17/22. Mailed to pro se party Chatha M. Tatum by regular mail. (smnd)

Case 5:19-cv-03228-JWL-JPO Document 79 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CHATHA M. TATUM,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 19-3228-JWL-JPO

TOMMY WILLIAMS, Warden,
El Dorado Correctional Facility,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a pro se petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On
October 31, 2022, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 76) dismissing the petition
and denying the issuance of a certificate of appealability. This matter is before the Court on the
Motion by Petitioner for Extension of Time to File Response to Memorandum Decision
(Doc. 78).
Petitioner seeks an extension of time to file a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The
rule provides that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days
after entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (emphasis added). Rule 6 provides that “[a]
court must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and (d), 52(b), 59(b), (d), and (e), and
60(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2). Thus, the time for filing the motion “is short—28 days from
entry of judgment, with no possibility of an extension.” Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1703
(2020); see also Solidfx, LLC v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc., 823 F. App’x 559, 568 n. 4 (10th Cir.
2020) (“[A] court may not extend the time to act under Rule 59(e).”) (citing Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(b)(2) and Weitz v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 214 F.3d 1175, 1179 (10th Cir. 2000)); see

1

Case 5:19-cv-03228-JWL-JPO Document 79 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 2

also Burden v. Suthers, 303 F. App’x 612, (10th Cir. 2008) (noting in habeas action under § 2254
that district court denied request to extend the time to file a Rule 59(e) motion “because courts
have no discretion to grant such an extension”).
Because extensions to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) are not
allowed, Petitioner’s motion is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Motion by Petitioner for
Extension of Time to File Response to Memorandum Decision (Doc. 78) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated November 17, 2022, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2