Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:06-CV-421-TS.
December 18, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
On July 5, 2006, Eric D. Smith, a pro se prisoner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court dismissed his petition on July 31, 2006, for failure to allege a sanction that is actionable under § 2254. The Court reasoned that the alleged sanction of disciplinary segregation, without demotion to a lower credit time earning class, did not create a liberty interest.
On September 18, 2006, Mr. Smith filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b) permits a court to relieve a party from a judgment or order on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Rule 60(b) relief is available only when it is based upon one of the six specific grounds listed in the rule. Talano v. Northwestern Med. Faculty Found., Inc., 273 F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir. 2001).
Smith argues that his motion for reconsideration should be granted on grounds of mistake: the imposed sanction affected his good time credits and release date and, thus, he had a protected liberty interest. Relief under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy that is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Id. Therefore, before this Court may grant a motion for reconsideration, it needs to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist. Based upon the record currently before the Court, it cannot make that determination.
Accordingly, Smith is GRANTED to and including December 29, 2006, to supplement the motion with the conduct report, the disciplinary hearing board report, his appeals, the responses to his appeals, and any other relevant documents. The court CAUTIONS Smith that if he does not, his Motion to Reconsider will be denied.
SO ORDERED.