Jones v. Norman

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction as untimely. [Doc. 55] re: 55 MOTION for Reconsideration re 47 Judgment - (Case),,, MOTION to Alter Judgment filed by Petitioner Rafael A. Jones, Sr.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 6/13/13. (JWJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

RAFAEL A. JONES, SR.,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFF NORMAN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12-CV-44 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This closed matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion for a “rehearing under Rule
59(e) Fed. R. Civ. P.” Petitioner objects to the denial of his habeas petition, which was filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the following reasons, petitioner’s motion will be denied.
The Eighth Circuit has given specific instructions with respect to filing motions challenging
judgments. Where a motion to reconsider is made in response to a final order, the Eighth Circuit
has instructed district courts to construe it as a motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 827 (8th Cir. 2000).
Under Rule 59(e), petitioner had twenty-eight (28) days from the date the judgment was
entered, July 10, 2012, to file a motion to alter or amend the judgment. See Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ.
P. Petitioner’s motion is dated September 17, 2012, and it was filed on September 24, 2012, more
than 28 days after the judgment was entered. As a result, the motion is untimely and this Court lacks
jurisdiction to consider it. See Townsend v. Terminal Packaging Co., 853 F.2d 623, 624 (8th Cir.
1988).

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment under
Rule 59(e) is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction as untimely. [Doc. 55]

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 13th day of June, 2013.

2