Dennis Lee Hohol v. Dylon Radtke

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Dennis Lee Hohol’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as an improper successive petition. The court concluded that Hohol had not shown newly discovered evidence, manifest error, or any other basis for relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b).

Holdings

1. A Rule 59(e) motion must be denied when the movant fails to clearly establish newly discovered evidence or a manifest error of law or fact.
2. Rule 60(b) relief was unavailable because Hohol established none of the rule's enumerated grounds or other special circumstances warranting extraordinary relief.
3. The court would not reconsider its dismissal because Hohol had not shown that his petition was not successive or that he had obtained the authorization required for a new § 2254 petition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hohol's motion for reconsideration could be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) based on newly discovered evidence or manifest error.
2. Whether Hohol was entitled to extraordinary relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
3. Whether the court's dismissal of Hohol's unauthorized successive § 2254 petition should be reconsidered.

Disposition

other