HARRIS v. QUINTANA, No. 1:2009cv00318 - Document 30 (W.D. Pa. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 29 Objections. The only ground Petitioner appears to argue is the third ground, i.d., the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent a manifest injustice. As Petitioner has not convinced the Court that a clear error o f law was committed or that a manifest injustice was effectuated in denying his Section 2241 petition, the Motion is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 9/25/2012. Copy of Memorandum Opinion mailed to Petitioner at FCI McDowell on 9/25/2012. (dgg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STEVEN HARRIS, Petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA, Warden, Respondent ) ) ) Civil Action No. 09-318 ) ) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly ) ) ) ) Re: ECF No. 29 MEMORANDUM OPINION Despite the fact that all parties consented to have the Magistrate Judge exercise plenary jurisdiction, ECF No.8 and No. 17, after the undersigned issued a Memorandum Order, ECF No. 27, denying Steven Harris's pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241, Petitioner filed "Objections" to the Memorandum Order. ECF No. 29. Insofar as "objections" are not appropriate to a final order entered by a Magistrate Judge, where the parties have consented to have the Magistrate Judge enter final judgment, we will liberally construe the pro se Petitioner's objections to constitute a Motion To Alter or Amend the Judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).1 Treated as such, the Motion will be denied. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently explained: A motion for reconsideration is a limited vehicle used "to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex reI. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). A judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in the law; We deem Petitioner's filing ofthe Motion to be timely under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, given his explanation that he sent the Motion on August 2,2012, to a Post Office Box that the Clerk's Office ceased using. ECF No. 29-1 at I. I (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error ofIaw or prevent manifest injustice. Id. Vora v. All Conspirators, F. App'x _, _,2012 WL 3642273, at * 1 (3d Cir. 2012). The only ground Petitioner appears to argue is the third ground, the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent a manifest injustice. As Petitioner has not convinced the Court that a clear error of law was committed or that a manifest injustice was effectuated in denying his Section 2241 petition, the Motion is hereby DENIED. BY THE COURT, slMaureen P. Kelly MAUREEN P. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Date: September 25, 2012 cc: STEVEN HARRIS 41534-037 FCI MCDOWELL 101 FEDERAL DRIVE BOX 1029 WELCH, WV 24801 All counsel of record viaCM-ECF 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
