Scott v. Wilson

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 03/23/2017. Copy of Memorandum Opinion mailed to Petitioner.(ccol, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ANDREW NEAL SCOTT, ~ ~ IL IE MAR 2 4 20!7 v. Civil Action No. 3:16CVB04 ERIC D. WILSON, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner, Andrew Neal Scott, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, submitted this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. the United States District Court for In the Eastern District of Virginia, all pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpora must be filed on a set of standardized forms. 13, 2016, filing a See E.D. Va. Loe. Civ. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on October the Court mailed petition pursuant directed Scott to Scott to 28 the standardized U.S. C. § complete and return the 2241. form form for The to within eleven (11) days of the date of entry thereof. Court the Court The Court warned Scott that the failure to complete and return the form in a timely manner would result in dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(b). By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on November 10, 2016, days the Court dismissed the action because more than eleven had ~ L...J CLERK, U.S. DiSTrhCT COUR1 RICHMOND, VA Petitioner, R. 83.4(A). ;,~ elapsed since the entry of the October 13, 2016 Memorandum Order and Scott failed to complete and return to the Court the standardized petition. form Later that day, for filing November 21, 28 u.s.c. 2241 § the Court received Scott's completed standardized form for filing a 28 U.S.C. On a 2016, the 2241 petition. § Court received from Scott a The Court construes this as letter motion for reconsideration. a motion requesting reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59{e) {\\Rule 59{e) Motion," ECF No. 8), because it was filed within twenty-eight days of the November 10, Memorandum Opinion and Order. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 2016 See MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. {4th Cir. 2008) {citing Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 {4th Cir. 1978)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit " {1) to law; {2) to or (3) to recognizes three grounds for relief under Rule 59 {e}: accommodate account an for correct a Hutchinson intervening change new evidence clear error of v. Staton, {D. Md. 1991); available at trial; law or prevent manifest 994 (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. 1419 not in controlling F.2d v. Atkins 1076, 1081 Koppers Co., v. Marathon F.R.D. 625, 626 {S.D. Miss. 1990)). {4th 771 F. injustice." Cir. 1993) Supp. 1406, LeTourneau Co., 130 Scott seemingly argues that granting Rule 59 {e) relief would prevent manifest injustice in the instant action. Scott indicates that he "did not receive a copy of the Order to respond until October 24, 2016[,] 2 the same day that the order was due." that he copies "sent out and the postage." satisfies Rule 59 (e} (Rule 59(e} Mot. 1.} copies as soon as The (Id.} Court could obtain the I finds and will grant him relief. the Court will vacate the November 10, Scott states that Scott Accordingly, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order and will continue to process the action. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Scott. It is so ORDERED. /s/ /?-€. (' Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: /U t;,.trA., 'l \/l--t>t.'l 3

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?