From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hendershot v. Scibana

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
Dec 29, 2004
04-C-415-C (W.D. Wis. Dec. 29, 2004)

Opinion

04-C-415-C.

December 29, 2004


ORDER


Petitioner has filed a motion for an enlargement of time in which to file a response to the government's Rule 60(b)(5) motion. The motion will be denied as unnecessary. Once the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issues its mandate in White v. Scibana, 390 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2004), no legal argument petitioner might advance will persuade me that I should deny defendant's motion. The ruling in this case relies entirely on this court's ruling in White, which has now been reversed. Rule 60(b)(5) encompasses the traditional power of a court of equity to modify its decree in light of changed circumstances. Frew ex rel. Frew v. Hawkins, 124 S.Ct. 899 (2004). Here, there is no doubt that circumstances have changed. The court of appeals' order in White is now the law that controls the decision in this case.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's motion for an enlargement of time in which to file a response to the government's Rule 60(b)(5) motion is DENIED.


Summaries of

Hendershot v. Scibana

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
Dec 29, 2004
04-C-415-C (W.D. Wis. Dec. 29, 2004)
Case details for

Hendershot v. Scibana

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD HENDERSHOT, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH SCIBANA, Warden of Oxford Prison…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

Date published: Dec 29, 2004

Citations

04-C-415-C (W.D. Wis. Dec. 29, 2004)