Opinion
CASE NO. 4:17 CV 0208
08-02-2018
WILLIAM SNOWDEN, JR., Plaintiff, v. CHARMAINE BRACY, Defendant.
JUDGE JAMES G. CARR MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before me by referral is the pro se petition of William Snowden, Jr. for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Here, Snowden has moved to clarify the record as to purported misstatements of the record by the State in its return of the writ and in this Court's order of September 6, 2017, which denied Snowden's motions for an evidentiary hearing and for immediate release on bond and which noted the State's return of the writ.
The matter was referred to me under Local Rule 72.2 by United States District Judge James G. Carr in a non-document order entered March 20, 2017.
ECF No. 1.
ECF No. 13.
ECF No. 16.
Regardless of any alleged lack of precision in any summary background reference, the exact terms of Snowden's third ground for habeas relief have not been altered or amended in any way. Further, the fragmentary summary to which Snowden objects was simply contextual dicta contained in - and not the holding of - the ruling issued on September 6. Finally, neither Rule 59(e), which governs motions to alter or amend judgment, or Rule 60(b), which applies to motions for relief from judgment, are available as means by which a party may vacate dicta in a court decision.
F.D.I.C. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 216 F.R.D. 422, 423 (E.D. Illinois 2003) (citation omitted). --------
Thus, inasmuch as the present motion merely seeks to more precisely restate Snowden's third ground for habeas relief, which ground Snowden asserts was not accurately summarized in the filings mentioned above, or seeks to entirely remove the prior language, the motion is denied as non-cognizable. Dated: August 2, 2018
s/ William H. Baughman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge