Lightfoot v. F C I Pollock

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

CHAD LIGHTFOOT #20367-035 CASE NO. 1:24-CV-00733 SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS

WARDEN F C I POLLOCK MAG. JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is a Motion to Reconsider Judgment and Adoption of Petitioner’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 15) filed by Chad Lightfoot (“Petitioner”). Petitioner asserts that the Court should reconsider the final Judgment (Doc. 13) adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, because the Judgment “represents a clear error in law and would subject the Petitioner to a grave manifest error and miscarriage of justice.”1 “Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004). A motion for reconsideration, is “not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments,” instead, such a motion is designed to “correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Id. Petitioner asserts that the Court should reconsider its Judgment based on three arguments: 1) the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) failed to give him credit for good time he earned in state custody; 2) BOP should have calculated his federal

1 Doc. 15 at 1. custody date to begin on March 15, 2023; and 3) BOP was in error in denying his request for a nunc pro tunc designation.” All of these arguments were raised in Lightfoot’s original petition and addressed in the Report and Recommendation adopted in the Judgment. Lightfoot’s motion cites his proposed amended habeas petition? as additional grounds for reconsideration. He has also filed a motion for leave of court to file this amended petition (Doc. 14). The only issue raised in the proposed amended petition not raised in Lightfoot’s motion for reconsideration is the assertion that Lightfoot’s criminal history and offense level were miscalculated. This issue was raised in his original habeas petition and addressed in the Report and Recommendation adopted in the Judgment. After a thorough review of motion, and the proposed amended petition, Lightfoot fails to raise sufficient grounds for reconsideration. The motion, and the proposed amended petition, are restatements of all the arguments that have been rejected by the Court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider Judgment and Adoption of Petitioner’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 15), and the Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 14) are DENIED. THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 7th day of February, 2025. 6- Lcbeararale dn JUDGE JERRY EDWARDS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 Doc. 15 at 6-7. 3 Doc. 14-2.