Mitchell v. Loven et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying 4 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 5/31/2011. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(bsw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:10cv275-02-MU

DANITA MITCHELL,

)
)
1
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
DEAN LOVEN, Private Attorney, et al, )
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before this Court upon Petitioner’s document captioned as a Motion
to Reconsider Habeas Corpus. (Doc. No. 4).
The record reflects that on June 16, 2010, Petitioner filed a Petition seeking relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). After considering the matters set forth therein, and without
requiring a response from any Respondent, on June 29, 2010, the Court entered an Order
concluding that the claims in the Petition were unexhausted. (Doc. No. 2). Furthermore, such
Order dismissed the subject Petition without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to timely re-file it
after she exhausts her State judicial remedies. (Doc. No. 2).
On October 20, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant Motion to Reconsider merely
contending that Defendants committed fraud by altering a legal document; and that she did not
waive her Sixth Amendment right to counsel. (Doc. No. 4). However, inasmuch as such
assertions do not warrant reconsideration of the Court’s earlier Order of dismissal, this Motion
will be denied.

1

Although she now refers to herself as the “Defendant” in this pleading, inasmuch as her original pleading
was construed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court will refer to M s. Mitchell as the “Petitioner” and her opponents as
the “Respondents.”

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. No. 4)
is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
`
Signed: May 31, 2011

2