Richardson v. Reynolds

Filing 25

ORDER denying 23 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 03/26/2013.(dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Curtis Dale Richardson,
Petitioner,
v.
Cecilia R. Reynolds, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 4:12-cv-00948-RBH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Order
Pursuant to Rule 59(e)” filed on December 12, 2012. ECF No. 23. The motion regards the Court’s
November 27, 2012 order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss Petitioner’s
habeas petition without requiring a response. ECF No. 20. Petitioner contends that his Petition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus should have been construed as an action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he filed a motion seeking damages and injunctive relief
against the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services (“SCDPPPS”).
Motions under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Procedure are not to be made lightly;
“reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests
of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” 12 JAMES WM. MOORE

ET AL.,

MOORE’S

FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 59.30[4] (3d ed.). The Fourth Circuit has held such a motion should be
granted for only three reasons: (1) to follow an intervening change in controlling law; (2) on
account of new evidence; or (3) “to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.”
Collison v. International Chemical Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 1994). Rule 59
motions “may not be used to make arguments that could have been made before the judgment was
entered.” Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002). Nor are they opportunities to rehash

issues already ruled upon because a litigant is displeased with the result. See Tran v. Tran, 166 F.
Supp. 2d 793, 798 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
The argument Petitioner now makes was never raised in his § 2254 petition or in his
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. While the Court is required to
liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants, Petitioner’s argument assumes the existence of a
duty of this Court to add parties that were never joined (here, the SCDPPPS). Moreover, construing
a § 2254 claim as a § 1983 claim would demand that the Court read too much into Petitioner’s
petition in order to conjure up frivolous claims. Cf. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274,
1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (“Even in the case of pro se litigants, [courts] cannot be expected to construct
full blown claims from sentence fragments.”). Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
March 26, 2013

2