United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
MAURICE HICKS, JR., CHIEF JUDGE.
Butler (“Petitioner”) is before the Court on a
Motion for Reconsideration (Record Document 26) of the
Court's Judgment (Record Document 25) adopting Magistrate
Judge Hayes's Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) dismissing Petitioner's Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Record Document 1), filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons set forth below,
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Record Document
26) is DENIED.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a motion
for reconsideration per se; however, the Fifth Circuit has
recognized that such motions may challenge a judgment or
order under Rules 54(b), 59(e), or 60(b). See, e.g.,
Southern Snow Mfg. Co., Inc. v. SnoWizard Holdings,
Inc., 921 F.Supp.2d 548, 564 (E.D. La. 2013). When the
motion for reconsideration concerns a final judgment, as in
the current case, Rules 59 and 60 apply. The timing of the
motion affects the standard to be applied to the motion. If a
motion for reconsideration is filed within 28 days of the
judgment or order of which the party complains, it is
considered to be a Rule 59(e) motion; otherwise, it is
treated as a Rule 60(b) motion. See Duplechain v.
Neustrom, No. CV 6:15-2433, 2019 WL 1598155, at *2 (W.D.
La. Apr. 15, 2019) (citing Shepherd v. Int'l Paper
Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2004)). Here,
Defendant filed his Motion for Reconsideration outside of the
28-day period required for a Rule 59(e) motion. Accordingly,
the Court will construe the motion as one under Rule 60(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under which the Court
may relieve a party from a final judgment for the following
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable,
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
argues that the Court committed multiple errors by adopting
Magistrate Judge Hayes's R&R. As a result, he argues,
he is entitled to relief from the Court's Judgment
(Record Document 25). First, he argues that “one of the
most important errors is the false statement that
[Petitioner] did not deny fighting.” Record Document
26. However, it is unclear what Petitioner is objecting to,
as the R&R never states that Defendant did not deny
fighting. In fact, the R&R adopted by the Court clearly
states that, “[t]he DHO also recorded Butler's
statement . . . denying a fight with Sledge but admitting
that Butler had defended himself.” Record Document 18
at 5. Therefore, this argument is rejected.
Petitioner cites two cases regarding the inability of one of
his witnesses to testify at the DHO hearing. The first case
he cites is Pace v. Oliver, 634 F.2d 302 (5th Cir.
1981). Petitioner argues that this case stands for the
proposition that the “refusal to call a witness is an
arbitrary decision with civil liability.” Record
Document 26. However, the Court has reviewed this case and
finds that the case has no ...