United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana
Monwell Douglas was convicted in a state court of felony murder and robbery as a Class B felony. In this action, Douglas sought a writ of habeas corpus. After briefing and consideration of the expanded record, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied. Judgment was entered on the clerk's docket on January 8, 2014.
A notice of appeal was filed on January 14, 2014. The appeal has been docketed as No. 14-1087.
On January 16 and 17, 2014, the clerk docketed from the petitioner a motion for enlargement of time and his objection to the disposition of the case. On January 22, 2014, and January 30, 2014, Douglas filed motions for extension of time to file a request to proceed in forma pauperis and for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. These are the matters addressed in this Entry.
As just noted, a notice of appeal has been received and processed. Accordingly, Douglas' motion for extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal [dkt 61] is denied.
Douglas' objection filed on January 17, 2014 actually makes reference to a number of specific matters.
Douglas' renewed request for a certificate of appealability [dkt 62] is denied for the same reasons explained in Part II of the Entry issued on January 8, 2014.
A litigant subject to an adverse judgment, and who seeks reconsideration by the district court of that adverse judgment, may "file either a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)." Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991).
In this case, given the timing and the content of Douglas' objection to the disposition of his habeas petition, that objection will be treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Borrero v. City of Chicago, 456 F.3d 698, 701-02 (7th Cir. 2006) (explaining that whether a motion filed within the time period contemplated by Rule 59(e) should be analyzed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of ...