United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
H. PAYNE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
April 18, 2019, the Court dismissed without prejudice
Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for failure to comply with
an Order by the Court (Dkt. 10). On May 8, 2019, Petitioner
subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend for relief from
judgment (Dkt. 20), which the Court construes as a motion
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59.
59(e) motion may be granted “to correct manifest errors
of law or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir.
1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Relief under Rule
59(e) also is appropriate when “the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the
controlling law.” Servants of the Paraclete v.
Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A Rule 59(e)
motion, however, is not a new opportunity to revisit issues
already addressed or to advance arguments that could have
been raised earlier. See id.
petition was dismissed for his failure to comply with the
Court's Order to file an amended petition that addressed
only habeas corpus issues. Despite the Court's directions
and warning that failure to file a proper petition could
result in dismissal of this action, Plaintiff's amended
petition contained claims concerning the conditions of his
confinement which were not appropriate for a habeas action
argues in his motion that he followed the Court's
instructions “in earnest” and refocused his
claims to comply with the Court's directions (Dkt. 20 at
1). He admits the amended petition “mention[s] some
collateral damage to conditions issues, ” but asserts
the claims do not diminish his “primary focus” on
the allegedly “unconstitutional application of
‘earned credits eligibility.'” Id.
He contends he is not an attorney, and he lacks meaningful
access to legal research. Id. Petitioner further
argues his claims concerning access to the courts and
restoration of his legal documents are not
conditions-of-confinement claims, but are instead collateral
references to his research documents in a state-court civil
case. Id. at 2.
concerning access to the courts and to legal documents
clearly raise issues that must be presented in a civil rights
complaint, as the Court previously has advised Petitioner.
See United States v. Brittain, 41 Fed.Appx. 246, 249
n.2 (10th Cir. 2002) (claim for denial of access to the
courts should be brought as a civil rights action).
Plaintiff, however, failed to comply with the Court's
Order to file a proper habeas corpus petition, resulting in
dismissal of this action. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333
F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)
“has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss
actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute
or comply with the rules of civil procedure or court's
orders.”). See also Fletcher v. Raemisch, ___
Fed.Appx. ___, No. 19-1046, 2019 WL 1552556, at *1 (10th Cir.
Apr. 10, 2019) (holding that dismissal of amended complaint
was warranted for failure to follow rule governing
pleadings); Adams v. Wiley, 298 Fed.Appx. 767, 769
(10th Cir. 2008) (holding that dismissal of prisoner's
habeas action for failure to prosecute and to comply with
court's orders was not abuse of discretion when prisoner,
despite being warned that his action would be dismissed,
failed to submit proper forms as ordered by court).
motion will be considered under Rule 59(e), when it involves
reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision
on the merits.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d
1309, 1323-24 (10th Cir. 1997) (citations and internal
quotations omitted). “A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or
amend the judgment should be granted only to correct manifest
errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Id. at 1324 (internal quotations omitted).
“Rule 59(e) relief is appropriate only where ‘the
court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position,
or the controlling law.'” Barber ex rel. Barber
v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, 562 F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th
Cir. 2009) (quoting Servants of Paraclete v. Does,
204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)). Here, the Court finds
Petitioner has failed to meet his burden for relief under
Rule 59(e), thus his motion to alter or amend the judgment
must be denied.
Petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment (Dkt.
20) is DENIED.