Opinion
Case No. 1:07-cv-094.
January 6, 2011
Summary : The Petitioner filed motions asking the Court to reconsider its Order dismissing the petition, to compel the Respondent to file additional state court appellate briefs, and for leave to file an amended petition. The Court denied the Petitioner's motions, finding that there is no justification to alter or amend its prior Order and the Respondent has filed all the requested briefs.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTIONS
Before the Court are the Petitioner's "Motion to Reconsider Order Adopting Report and Recommendation" filed on October 18, 2010, "Motion to Compel Respondent to Comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts" filed on October 18, 2010, and "Motion for Leave to Amend Original Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254" filed on October 25, 2010. See Docket Nos. 49, 50, and 53. A response in opposition to the Petitioner's motion to reconsider and motion to compel was filed on October 22, 2010. See Docket No. 52. A response in opposition to the Petitioner's motion to amend his petition was filed on November 3, 2010. See 55. The Petitioner did not file reply briefs. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the Petitioner's motions.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 7, 2007, the petitioner, Randal R. Steen, filed a "Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. See Docket No. 1. On January 4, 2008, Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. issued a Report and Recommendation, wherein he recommended that the Court deny Steen's petition as untimely. See Docket No. 3. The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation on January 28, 2008. See Docket No. 5. Steen appealed and on May 7, 2009, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Court's order and remanded for further proceedings. See Docket No. 14.
On July 30, 2009, the Respondent filed a "Motion to Dismiss Section 2254 Application." See Docket No. 20. On August 20, 2010, Magistrate Judge Miller issued a Report and Recommendation wherein he recommended that the Court grant Schmalenberger's motion to dismiss, deny Steen's petition, certify that an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis, and order that a certificate of appealability not be issued. See Docket No. 40. On October 8, 2010, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and judgment was entered in accordance with the Court's order. See Docket Nos. 47 and 48.
At the time Steen filed his petition, Tim Schuetzle was the warden of the North Dakota State Penitentiary and was named as the Respondent. See Docket No. 1. On August 20, 2010, the current warden, Robyn Schmalenberger, was substituted for Schuetzle as the Respondent. See Docket No. 39.
II. LEGAL DISCUSSION
A. MOTION TO RECONSIDER
On October 18, 2010, Steen filed a motion to reconsider. See Docket No. 49. The motion states, in part:
Steen's case is that quintessential extraordinary case with a claim of innocence. Actual innocence should not be taken so lightly or discarded so easily by our judicial system. Steen keeps waiting for some Judge to say, "Hold on here. Wait just a minute here. He has proof of innocence, and it is undisputed proof. We need to take a good look at this case and in the interest of justice find a way to grant relief." This just never seems to happen and therefore denial of this Writ of Habeas Corpus represents a gross injustice.
With respect to the actual innocence claim, it seems unbelievable to imagine that the Court (in good conscience), can say that they have carefully reviewed relevant case law, Steen's objection, and the entire record and yet still deny relief as though a wrongful conviction means nothing; as though human life means nothing. It appears to Steen that the Court looks at the case as just another one to be rubber-stamped like the majority of the others.See Docket No. 49.
"The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not mention motions for reconsideration." Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir. 1999). Steen asserts that his motion is filed under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Docket No. 49. Rule 59(e) allows a court to alter or amend a judgment upon a motion filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). A district court enjoys broad discretion in determining whether to grant or deny a Rule 59(e) motion. "Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting `manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.'" United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Innovative Home Health Care v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998)). "Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it `may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.'" Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605, 2617 n. 5 (2008) (quoting 11 C. Wright A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, pp. 127-28 (2d ed. 1995)).
The Court has carefully reviewed Steen's motion to reconsider and finds that there is no justification for granting a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Steen has failed to present any new evidence or any reason why he is entitled to relief under Rule 59(e). Rule 59(e) is not designed to provide an avenue for a disappointed petitioner to relitigate old matters. Under such circumstances, relief under Rule 59(e) is unwarranted. Steen's motion to reconsider is denied.
B. MOTION TO COMPEL
On October 18, 2010, Steen filed a "Motion to Compel Respondent to Comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts." See Docket No. 50. Steen contends the record does not include the "REPLY and RECONSIDERATION BRIEFS that were filed in each of Steen's appeals to the North Dakota Supreme Court." See Docket No. 50 (capitals in original). Without conceding she was required to do so, Schmalenberger filed the briefs Steen requested with her response to the motion. See Docket Nos. 52, 52-1, 52-2, 52-3, 52-4, and 52-5. The Court finds that Schmalenberger has complied with Steen's request. Accordingly, Steen's motion to compel is denied.
C. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PETITION
On October 25, 2010, Steen filed a "Motion for Leave to Amend Original Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254." See Docket No. 53. The motion states, in part:
As the Court knows, Steen is a pro se petitioner and without the benefit of counsel has been desperately trying to figure out what he has done wrong in presenting this case. It has now occurred to Steen that maybe he has not given the Court the right tools to grant relief. Whereas, if these are the tools the Court needs, then here they are in the AMENDED PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254.See Docket No. 53 (emphasis and capitals in original).
Steen asserts his motion is filed under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, when a motion to amend a petition is filed after judgment is entered, as is the case here, the motion is governed by Rules 59 and 60. United States v. Harrison, 469 F.3d 1216, 1217 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Wilburn v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., 469 F.2d 1288, 1290 (8th Cir. 1974)). Accordingly, the Court denies Steen's "Motion for Leave to Amend Original Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254" for the same reasons the Court denied Steen's motion to reconsider.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS SO ORDERED.
28 U.S.C. § 2254DENIED.