Harris v. Quintana

Full title: STEVEN HARRIS, Petitioner, v. FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA, Warden, Respondent

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 25, 2012

Civil Action No. 09-318 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 25, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 09-318 Re: ECF No. 29

09-25-2012

STEVEN HARRIS, Petitioner, v. FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA, Warden, Respondent

MAUREEN P. KELLY

Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Despite the fact that all parties consented to have the Magistrate Judge exercise plenary jurisdiction, ECF No. 8 and No. 17, after the undersigned issued a Memorandum Order, ECF No. 27, denying Steven Harris's pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner filed "Objections" to the Memorandum Order. ECF No. 29.

Insofar as "objections" are not appropriate to a final order entered by a Magistrate Judge, where the parties have consented to have the Magistrate Judge enter final judgment, we will liberally construe the pro se Petitioner's objections to constitute a Motion To Alter or Amend the Judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).¹ Treated as such, the Motion will be denied.

1 We deem Petitioner's filing of the Motion to be timely under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, given his explanation that he sent the Motion on August 2, 2012, to a Post Office Box that the Clerk's Office ceased using. ECF No. 29-1 at 1.

As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently explained:

A motion for reconsideration is a limited vehicle used "to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). A judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in the law;
(2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Id.

Vora v. All Conspirators. _ F. App'x _, _, 2012 WL 3642273, at *1 (3d Cir. 2012). The only ground Petitioner appears to argue is the third ground, i.e., the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent a manifest injustice. As Petitioner has not convinced the Court that a clear error of law was committed or that a manifest injustice was effectuated in denying his Section 2241 petition, the Motion is hereby DENIED.

BY THE COURT,

______________

MAUREEN P. KELLY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: STEVEN HARRIS

41534-037

FCI MCDOWELL

101 FEDERAL DRIVE

BOX 1029

WELCH, WV 24801

All counsel of record via CM-ECF