Summary
This United States District Court order denies a pro se prisoner's motion for reconsideration regarding the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. The court treated the motion as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and concluded that the original petition was properly dismissed as an improper successive filing under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Because the petitioner failed to demonstrate manifest legal error or present newly discovered evidence, the request for reconsideration was denied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the motion for reconsideration should be treated as a Rule 59(e) motion.
- Whether the district court erred in denying the motion for reconsideration.
Holdings
- The motion is to be considered under Rule 59(e) because it was filed within the 28‑day period after entry of judgment.
- The motion is denied because the petitioner failed to show a manifest error of law or fact, or newly discovered evidence, as required under Rule 59(e).
Key quotations
“A Rule 59(e) motion will be successful only where the movant clearly establishes: ‘(1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.’” (722 F.3d at 954)
Factual background
Petitioner Jason Robert Nieminski, a state prisoner at Oshkosh Correctional Institution, filed a habeas corpus petition that was dismissed as an untimely successive petition. He subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration arguing the petition was timely.
Procedural history
Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition on February 12, 2025, which the court dismissed as an improper successive petition on April 1, 2025. He then filed a motion for reconsideration on April 28, 2025, seeking to have the dismissal reviewed.