Nathan, et al v. Puckett

Filing 24

ORDER denying Petitioner's Motion 23 to Vacate the Court's Order of May 13, 2010, (Ct. R. Doc. 20), denying Petitioner's Motion 20 for Reconsideration of 7 Judgment. See Order for complete text. Signed by District Judge Walter J. Gex III on May 26, 2010. (Gex, Kathleen)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAYRAL T. NATHAN VERSUS STEVE W. PUCKETT ORDER

PLAINTIFF CRIMINAL NO. 1:91cv177WJG DEFENDANT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Petitioner's motion [23] to vacate the Court's order entered on April 27, 2010, denying Petitioner's motion for reconsideration. (Ct. R., Docs. 20, 22.) In the instant motion filed May 13, 2010, Petitioner points out that his motion for reconsideration was based on Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as stated in the order. (Id.) As such, Petitioner argues that Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does not set forth a time limitation. Because the instant action is civil in nature, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not apply. See Williams v. Smith, 434 F.2d 592, 595 (5th Cir. 1970) ("A habeas corpus petition is civil in nature . . . ."). Hence, Petitioner' reliance on Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal s Procedure is misplaced. Additionally, upon review Petitioner's most recently filed motion, and the record in this cause, the Court finds Petitioner' arguments presented in his motion are without merit. The s Court therefore finds no reason to alter its previous ruling. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner' motion [23] to vacate the order entered on May 13, 2010, be, s
Page 1 of 2

and is hereby, denied. SO ORDERED this the 26th day of May, 2010.

UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2