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 judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. The court held that Warner had received an opportunity to address timeliness, and that he had not shown newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, clear error, or manifest injustice. The court also discussed the effect of the motion on the pending notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.

Holdings

1. Warner's argument that he was denied an opportunity to respond to the timeliness issue is without merit because the State raised timeliness in its Answer, Warner responded to the statute of limitations argument, and the court considered both parties' positions before dismissing the petition.
2. Warner's motion to alter or amend the judgment is denied because he merely reargues previously rejected claims without presenting newly discovered evidence, intervening changes in controlling law, or clear error by the court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court erred by dismissing the habeas petition without notice or opportunity to respond
2. Whether Warner presented grounds sufficient to warrant alteration or amendment of the judgment under Rule 59(e)

Disposition

other