United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
to U.S. Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Special Order 3-251, this habeas case has been
referred for findings, conclusions, and recommendation.
Before the Court is the petitioner's Petition to
Inform and Thank and Seek Time Extension, received on
March 5, 2019 (doc. 31). Based on the relevant filings and
applicable law, the motion should be DENIED.
September 21, 2018, it was recommended that the
petitioner's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the recommendation was
accepted, and the petition was dismissed on October 15, 2018.
(See docs. 11-13.) On October 25, 2018, the
petitioner moved to set aside the judgment on grounds that he
did not receive a copy of the recommendation. (See
doc. 14.) On November 5, 2018, it was recommended that the
judgment be vacated, and that he be given an opportunity to
file objections to the recommendation. (See doc.
15.) A copy of the recommendation for dismissal was sent to
him, and he was directed to file his objections within 14
days of being served with the recommendation. (See
id.) Petitioner received a copy of the recommendation
for dismissal on November 14, 2008, and he was granted an
extension of time until December 14, 2018, to file his
objections. (See docs. 16, 17.)
petitioner submitted an “abbreviated response”
that was received on December 14, 2018, and he sought an
extension of time to supplement his objections with
additional facts. (See docs. 18, 19.) By order dated
December 21, 2018, he was granted an extension until January
14, 2019, to file supplemental objections. (See doc.
20.) The order specifically provided that no further
extensions would be granted, and that if his supplemental
objections were not received by that date, only the
objections on file would be considered. (See id.)
petitioner then filed a Petition for Temporary Injunction
Grant, received on December 31, 2018. (See doc.
21.) He sought injunctive relief in the form of access to law
library reference materials, a law library computer, a
typewriter, printer, photocopier, and stored legal documents.
On January 8, 2019, it was recommended that the motion for
injunctive relief be denied. (See doc. 22.)
Petitioner filed objections to that recommendation to deny
injunctive relief, received on January 22, 2019.
(See doc. 24.) His objections did not include any
additional objections to the original recommendation to
dismiss the habeas petition.
January 23, 2019, the motion to set aside the judgment was
granted, and the judgment was vacated to allow for
consideration of the petitioner's objections to the
recommended dismissal of his petition. (See doc.
February 6, 2019, the recommendation to deny injunctive
relief and the original recommendation to dismiss the
petition for lack of jurisdiction were accepted, the petition
was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and judgment was
entered. (See docs. 26-28.)
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
petitioner seeks an extension of time until April 2, 2019, to
file objections to the original recommendation to dismiss the
petition. A judgment dismissing the petition has already been
entered. Moreover, it was entered after the petitioner's
“abbreviated response, ” which he filed after
receiving two extensions of time, had been considered, and
after the time for filing any supplemental objections had
expired. The motion for an extension of time should be
FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e)
extent that the petitioner's motion may be liberally
construed as a motion challenging the judgment under Rule
59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,  it should be
prevail on a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule
59(e), the moving party must show (1) an intervening change
in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not
previously available; or (3) a manifest error of law or fact.
See Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group, Inc., 342
F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). A Rule 59(e) motion is
“not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal
theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised
before the entry of judgment.” Templet v. HydroChem
Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004). Although courts
have “considerable discretion” to grant or to
deny a Rule 59(e) motion, they use the “extraordinary
remedy” under Rule 59(e) “sparingly.”
Id. at 479, 483. When considering a motion to alter
or amend judgment, “[t]he court must ...