United States of America et al v. Kraft et al

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 1/9/2013 DENYING 14 Motion for Reconsideration. Court DECLINES to issue certificate of appealability. (cc: all counsel, via US mail to Leslie John Hamilton at Sandstone Federal Correctional Institution) (cb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. LESLIE JOHN HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-C-961 CAROL L. KRAFT, MEL S. JOHNSON, JOHN KLUGIEWICZ, and MICHAEL TUTEN, Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Leslie John Hamilton (“Hamilton”) has filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 19, 2013, Decision and Order unsealing his purported qui tam action pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq., dismissing his motion to amend and clarify, and dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction, because despite its nomenclature, it is a successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that has not been authorized by the Court of Appeals. See United States v. Boyd, 591 F.3d 953, 955 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Lloyd, 398 F.3d 978, 979-80 (7th Cir. 2005); Melton v. United States, 359 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2004). (ECF No. 12.) Hamilton argues that the facts of his case are distinguishable from those of Boyd and Melton. Regardless of whether Hamilton’s motion is considered under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it does not present a basis for relief. Therefore, Hamilton’s motion for reconsideration is denied. NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Hamilton’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 14) is DENIED; and The Court also DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability from this Order pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Courts. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 9th day of January, 2013. BY THE COURT _______________________ Hon. Rudolph T. Randa U.S. District Judge 2

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?