From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chandler v. Zatecky

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
Jun 21, 2013
1:13-cv-838-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. Jun. 21, 2013)

Opinion

1:13-cv-838-TWP-DML

06-21-2013

KEVIN CHANDLER, Petitioner, v. DUSHAN ZATECKY, Respondent.


ENTRY

Based on its timing and content, the petitioner's motion for reconsideration is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Borrero v. City of Chicago, 456 F.3d 698, 701-02 (7th Cir. 2006) (explaining that whether a motion filed within the time frame contemplated by Rule 59(e) should be analyzed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure depends on the substance of the motion, not on the timing or label affixed to it). The purpose of a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) is to have the court reconsider matters "properly encompassed in a decision on the merits." Osterneck v. Ernst and Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1988). Rule 59(e) "authorizes relief when a moving party 'clearly establish[es] either a manifest error of law or fact' or 'present[s] newly discovered evidence.'" Souter v. International Union, 993 F.2d 595, 599 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)).

There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. In his action for habeas corpus relief the petitioner challenges the action taken against him in disciplinary action No. ISR 12-09-0092. This is the same disciplinary action challenged in this Court's Case No. 1:13-cv-207- TWP-DKL. Because the present action is duplicative of No. 1:13-cv-207-TWP-DKL, it was properly dismissed. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider [dkt 4], treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment, is denied.

The clerk shall include a copy of the docket sheet in No. 1:13-cv-207-TWP-DML and a copy the petition for a writ of habeas corpus in that action [dkt 1] with the petitioner's copy of this Entry.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Distribution: KEVIN CHANDLER
138734
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838

______________

Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge

United States District Court

Southern District of Indiana

Note to Clerk: Processing this document requires actions in addition to docketing and distribution.


Summaries of

Chandler v. Zatecky

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
Jun 21, 2013
1:13-cv-838-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. Jun. 21, 2013)
Case details for

Chandler v. Zatecky

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN CHANDLER, Petitioner, v. DUSHAN ZATECKY, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

Date published: Jun 21, 2013

Citations

1:13-cv-838-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. Jun. 21, 2013)