Dunn v. Crow

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

MICHAEL R. DUNN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-22-436-D ) SCOTT CROW, Director, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

O R D E R

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment [Doc. No. 11], filed July 28, 2022. Petitioner, who appears pro se, seeks relief from the Order of July 12, 2022 [Doc. No. 9], denying his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court liberally construes this Motion for Relief from Judgment as a motion under Rule 59(e) because it seeks to alter or amend the judgment. See Yost v. Stout, 607 F.3d 1239, 1243 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Where [a] motion requests a substantive change in the district court’s judgment or otherwise questions its substantive correctness, the motion is a Rule 59 motion, regardless of its label.”). Also, the Motion was timely filed within 28 days after the district court’s entry of final judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “Grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) motion include ‘(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Somerlott v. Cherokee nation Distributors, Inc., 686 F.3d 1144, 1153 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)); see also Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997). A Rule 59(e) motion “is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law. It is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012 (citations omitted). Petitioner neither acknowledges this standard nor attempts to satisfy it. He simply seeks reconsideration of a matter previously decided. The Court therefore finds insufficient reason to revisit its July 12, 2022, Order. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment [Doc. No. 11] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the Order entered by this Court on July 12, 2022 [Doc. No. 9], which denied Petitioner’s certificate of appealability, Petitioner’s Alternative Request for Certificate of Appealability [Doc. No. 11] is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19" day of August, 2022.

\ Q: □□ TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge