Harris v. U.S. Marshal Service
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Petitioner Christopher Harris's "Motion for Judgment against Respondent" [R. 13 ], and his "Motion to Release the Order to Notify the U.S. Attorney's Office" [R. 14 ] are DENIED as MOOT. 2. Harris's "Motion to Amend/Correct" [R. 17 ]; his "Motion for Summary Judgment" [R. 18 ] and his "Motion for Reconsideration" [R. 19 ] are DENIED. Motions terminated: 18 MOTION for Summarny Judgment b y Christopher Harris filed by Christopher Harris, 14 MOTION for Order by Christopher Harris filed by Christopher Harris, 19 MOTION for Reconsideration by Christopher Harris filed by Christopher Harris, 13 MOTION for Judgment by Christopher Harris filed by Christopher Harris, 17 MOTION to Amend/Correct by Christopher Harris filed by Christopher Harris. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 6/12/2015.(RBB)cc: COR, Paper copy to Christopher Harris, via US Mail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CHRISTOPHER L. HARRIS,
Civil Action No. 6:15-CV-99-KKC
U. S. MARSHALS SERVICE,
*** *** *** ***
Petitioner Christopher Harris is an inmate confined by the Bureau of Prisons in the
United States Penitentiary-McCreary, located in Pine Knot, Kentucky. Harris has filed a
series of motions [R. 13-14; R. 17-19], which, for the reasons set forth below, will be denied.
On June 10, 2015, Harris has filed a submission [R. 1] which the Court construed as
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On June 24, 2015, the
Court reviewed Harris’s construed § 2241 petition, as well as various supplements to that
submission, see R. 2-R. 8, and entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order (“the Opinion
and Order”) and Judgment denying Harris’s construed § 2241 petition. See R. 9; R. 10. In
the Opinion and Order, the Court discussed the claims which Harris appeared to be
asserting and explained why he was not entitled to relief with respect to those construed
habeas claims. [R. 9, pp. 2-6] The Court’s detailed findings and conclusions will not be set
forth in this Order, but the Court adopts them as if set forth herein.
Before Harris was aware that his construed § 2241 petition had been denied, he filed
two motions [R. 13 and R. 14] in which he appeared to be asking this Court to enter an
order in his favor in this § 2241 proceeding.1 Those two motions [R. 13; R. 14] will therefore
be denied as moot, in light of the subsequent entry of the Opinion and Order and Judgment.
After the entry of the Opinion and Order, Harris filed more confusing, substantively
incomprehensible, and mostly illegible motions [R. 17-19], in which he appears to be asking
this Court to reconsider, alter, or amend the Opinion and Order under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). Under this rule, a district court is permitted to alter or amend a judgment
only when one of the following, limited circumstances exist: (1) it has committed a clear
error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence has been located; (3) an intervening change in
controlling law has emerged; or (4) manifest injustice will occur. See Leisure Caviar, LLC v.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010); Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428
F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005). A motion filed under Rule 59(e) cannot be based on issues
which have already been presented and which the district court has already rejected.
Whitehead v. Bowen, 301 F. App’x 484, 489 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)); White v. Hitachi, Ltd., Case
No. 3:04–CV–20, 2008 WL 782565, at *1 (E. D. Tenn. Mar. 20, 2008).
As best as the Court can determine from Harris’s mostly inscrutable motions
docketed as R. 17-19, Harris does nothing more but reiterate the same convoluted
“commercial law analogies” set forth in his construed § 2241 petition and in his other predismissal submissions, so he has not satisfied the first criterion under Rule 59(e).
alleges no facts indicating that he has found newly discovered evidence or that an
On June 24, 2015, the same day on which the Opinion and Order and Judgment were entered, the Clerk of
the Court received and docketed two other motions [R. 6; R. 7] from Harris. The dismissal of this action on June
24, 2015, caused the administrative and automatic termination of those motions without the Court having
addressed them. Even so, the Court concludes that these motions contained nothing which assisted Harris’s
arguments in this proceeding.
intervening change has occurred, so he has not satisfied either the second or third criterion
under Rule 59(e).
Finally, Harris cannot establish that the denial of his Rule 59(e) motions subjects
him to manifest injustice, because as explained in the Opinion and Order, Harris has
unsuccessfully raised the same “commercial law analogies” in several previous § 2241
proceedings and has been denied relief every time he has done so. Because Harris has
satisfied none of the criteria set forth in Rule 59(e), his post-judgment motions docketed as
R. 17-19 will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner Christopher Harris’s “Motion for Judgment against Respondent” [R.
13], and his “Motion to Release the Order to Notify the U.S. Attorney’s Office” [R. 14] are
DENIED as MOOT.
2. Harris’s “Motion to Amend/Correct [R. 17]; his “Motion for Summary Judgment”
[R. 18] and his “Motion for Reconsideration” [R. 19] are DENIED.
This June 12, 2015.
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?