Harvey v. Director, TDCJ-CID
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (docket entry #49) is DENIED. However, if Petitioner wishes to file a Rule 60(b) motion which outlines his objections to the Report (#40), he should submit it wi thin a reasonable period of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60( c) (1). It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court send with this order copy of the Report and Recommendation in this case (#40) that addresses the merits of the issues raised by Petitioner. Signed by Judge Richard A. Schell on 8/21/2013. (kls, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CHRISTOPHER D. HARVEY, #1434901
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10cv63
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration following final judgment in this case. If a
motion for relief from judgment is filed within twenty-eight (28) days of final judgment, Petitioner’s
motion should be filed as a motion under Rule 59 rather than Rule 60. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Ford
v. Elsbury, 32 F.3d 931, 937 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc.
910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990)). If the motion is served after that time, it falls under Rule 60(b).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Petitioner’s motion is properly filed under Rule 59.
In his Rule 59 motion, Petitioner asserts that an inadvertent mistake led to the final judgment
in his case. The Report and Recommendation concerning the merits of the issues raised in this case
was filed on June 4, 2012 (docket entry #40). This court issued an order of dismissal adopting the
findings and conclusions of the Report on March 26, 2013, and ordered that the petition be denied
with prejudice and the case be dismissed. A close review of the record shows that while Petitioner
filed objections entitled, “Motion for De Novo Review,” they were filed in response to a different
Report that recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute based on mail being returned that had
been sent to Petitioner. Petitioner filed a change of address on April 18, 2013. He claims that he
never received the Report addressing the merits of his issues.
He now asks that his case be
Petitioner’s case has already been closed; thus, Petitioner may submit a motion for
reconsideration outlining his objections to the Report and Recommendation (#40) in a Rule 60(b)
In the interest of justice, the court will conduct a de novo review of the motion and
objections if Petitioner wishes to submit them. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (docket entry #49) is DENIED.
However, if Petitioner wishes to file a Rule 60(b) motion which outlines his objections to the
Report (#40), he should submit it within a reasonable period of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60( c) (1). It
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court send with this order a copy of the Report and
Recommendation in this case (#40) that addresses the merits of the issues raised by Petitioner.
Petitioner filed two motions concerning leave to appeal in forma pauperis (#51, 53).
Pending Petitioner’s filing of a Rule 60(b) motion, those motions are DENIED subject to
Finally, Petitioner files a motion for an order directing the Grayson County Sheriff’s Office
to provide Petitioner access to a law library (docket entry #52). He states that a statement from this
Court concerning Petitioner’s pro se status is what is required for him to gain access. To that extent,
Petitioner’s motion (docket entry #52) is GRANTED, and the Grayson County Sheriff’s Office
is hereby notified that Christopher Dale Harvey is proceeding pro se in the pursuit of his § 2254
petition for writ of habeas corpus.
SIGNED this the 21st day of August, 2013.
RICHARD A. SCHELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?