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, )

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