Altschul v. United States of America et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 39 MOTION for Reconsideration re 34 Judgment filed by Todd Warren Altschul. Signed by District Judge Marcia A. Crone on 07/26/2022. (bmf, )

Case 1:18-cv-00034-MAC-CLS Document 40 Filed 07/26/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 195

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
TODD WARREN ALTSCHUL,
Petitioner,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-34

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Todd Warren Altschul, currently a state prisoner confined in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brought this
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The court referred this matter to a United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas,
for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge
recommended petitioner should be denied permission to proceed as a sanctioned litigant.
Additionally, the magistrate judge determined the petition was frivolous and the respondent’s
motion to dismiss should be granted. Petitioner filed objections to the report and recommendation.
The court conducted a de novo review and determined petitioner’s objections lacked merit.
Accordingly, the report was adopted and a final judgment was entered.
Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration of the final judgment (#39). Petitioner
argues that the failure to consider the merits of his petition because of sanctions imposed against
him was incorrect.
Analysis
Rule 60, FED. R. CIV. P., provides in pertinent part:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On
motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from
a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that,
with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed

Case 1:18-cv-00034-MAC-CLS Document 40 Filed 07/26/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 196

or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other
reason that justifies relief.
After careful consideration of petitioner’s motion, the court is of the opinion that
petitioner’s motion fails to set forth a meritorious ground warranting relief from the judgment.
For the reasons set forth in the report and the memorandum order overruling petitioner’s
objections, the court finds petitioner’s motion lacks merit. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for
relief from the judgment should be denied.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment should be
denied. It is therefore,
ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment is DENIED.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 26th day of July, 2022.

________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE