Opinion
Case No. 8:04-CV-2798-T-30MAP.
November 20, 2006
ORDER
THIS cause comes before the Court for consideration of Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider the October 28, 2006 order dismissing his petition for federal habeas relief as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (Dkt. 17). Petitioner moves for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) provides that a party may file a motion to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment."
Rule 59(e) authorizes a motion to alter or amend a judgment after its entry. Rule 59(e) provides no specific grounds for relief, and "the decision to alter or amend judgment is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge." American Home Assur. Co. v. Glenn Estess Assocs., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1238-39 (11th Cir. 1985). There are four basic grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) motion: (1) manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment was based; (2) newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) manifest injustice in the judgment; and (4) an intervening change in the controlling law. See Sussman v. Salem, Saxon Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D.Fla. 1994).
The Court concluded that the petition was subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner asserts that reconsideration is imperative to correct a clear error related to the timeliness of his petition. The Court finds Petitioner's argument persuasive.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court ORDERS that:
1. The Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 17) is GRANTED.
2. The October 26, 2006 order denying the petition as time-barred (Dkt. 15) is hereby VACATED.
3. The Clerk shall REOPEN this case.DONE and ORDERED.