Opinion
CV-02-427-M, Civil No. 02-427-M, Opinion No. 2003 DNH 079
May 16, 2003
ORDER
On March 24, 2003, after reviewing the record in this case, the court concluded that petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Specifically, the court held that "[n]othing in the habeas petition or in the decision of the New Hampshire Supreme Court suggests that the result reached in petitioner's state proceedings was either `contrary to' or `involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.'" Gordon v. Warden, 2003 DNH 51 at 11-12 (D.N.H. March 24, 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)). Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition.
Petitioner now moves the court to alter or amend its judgment and seeks leave for additional time to file an objection to the State's motion for summary judgment. In support of his motions, petitioner asserts that the court erroneously granted the State's motion for summary judgment without affording him the opportunity to file an objection. Petitioner makes a valid point. Instead of disposing of his petition by granting the State's motion, the court should have dismissed the petition pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Petitions ("If it appears that an evidentiary hearing is not required, the judge shall make such disposition of the petition as justice shall require.").
In the interest of fairness, the court will treat petitioner's motions as seeking reconsideration of the March 24, 2003 order. To that extent, those motions are granted, the March 24 order is vacated (subject to reinstatement), and petitioner shall be afforded additional time within which to file an objection (and supporting memorandum) to the State's motion for summary judgment.
With the benefit of the court's earlier order, petitioner should be aware of the legal principles governing his petition for habeas relief. He is encouraged to focus his objection on those issues. Specifically, he must demonstrate that the state court's adjudication of his claim under the "doctrine of specialty" resulted in either a decision that was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or one that was "based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding," 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
Conclusion
Petitioner's motions (documents 14 and 15) are granted to the extent that they move the court to reconsider its order of March 24, 2003. In all other respects, those motions are denied.
Having reconsidered its order of March 24, 2003, the court hereby vacates that order, subject to reinstatement should petitioner fail to identify any genuine issues of material fact warranting an evidentiary hearing or should he fail to establish any legal basis for the habeas corpus relief he seeks. Petitioner shall file his objection to the State's motion for summary judgment on or before June 13, 2003.
SO ORDERED.