Danny Lee Warner v. Warden Harold May, Montana Attorney General

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Montana denied Danny Lee Warner’s motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60 to set aside or amend the dismissal of his untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The court held that Warner had received an opportunity to address timeliness, and that he demonstrated neither a due process violation nor newly discovered evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law.

Holdings

1. The district court did not violate due process because the State raised timeliness in its answer, Warner responded to the statute-of-limitations argument and equitable-tolling issue, and the court considered both parties' positions before dismissing the petition.
2. The notice of appeal did not prevent the district court from considering the Rule 59(e) motion because a motion listed in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A), including a Rule 59 motion, renders the notice of appeal ineffective pending disposition of the motion.
3. Warner was not entitled to Rule 59(e) relief because he presented no newly discovered evidence, intervening change in controlling law, clear error, or manifest injustice, and largely repeated arguments previously considered and rejected.
4. Warner was not entitled to relief under Rule 60 because the court had not dismissed the petition without notice or an opportunity to respond, and Warner identified no other reason justifying relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court violated due process by dismissing Warner's § 2254 petition without notice or an opportunity to respond.
2. Whether the filing of Warner's notice of appeal deprived the district court of jurisdiction to consider his Rule 59(e) and Rule 60 motion.
3. Whether Warner satisfied the requirements for relief under Rule 59(e) by showing newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law.
4. Whether Warner was entitled to relief under Rule 60 based on the alleged error in dismissing his petition without an opportunity to respond.

Disposition

dismissed