KOCH v. BROWN, No. 2:2012cv00208 - Document 24 (S.D. Ind. 2013)
Court Description: Order Denying Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment - Mr. Koch's motion to alter or amend judgment [Dkt. 22] is treated as labeled in relation to final judgment issued on April 17, 2013, and as so treated is denied. The reason for this ruling is that the action was properly dismissed for the reasons explained in the Entry of April 17, 2013. Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/22/2013. (RSF)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
KOCH v. BROWN Doc. 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION MATTHEW E. KOCH, Petitioner, vs. RICHARD BROWN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:12-cv-208-JMS-WGH Order Denying Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Matthew Koch abducted, shot, and mistreated Lien Kim Le in July 2008. He was convicted in Vanderburgh County of battery, kidnapping, and robbery. See Koch v. State, No. 82A01-1004-CR-154 (Ind.Ct.App. Aug. 24, 2011). This Court then, after briefing and consideration of the expanded record, denied Koch’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes relief when a moving party ‘clearly establish[es] either a manifest error of law or fact’ or ‘present[s] newly discovered evidence.’” Souter v. International Union, 993 F.2d 595, 599 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)). There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. The Court did not misapprehend the petitioner’s claims and did not misapply the law to those claims in light of proceedings in the Indiana state courts. Mr. Koch’s motion to alter or amend judgment [Dkt. 22] is treated as labeled in relation to final judgment issued on April 17, 2013, and as so treated is denied. The reason for this ruling is that the action was properly dismissed for the reasons explained in the Entry of April 17, 2013. Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006) (“Altering or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) is permissible when there is newly discovered evidence or there has Dockets.Justia.com been a manifest error of law or fact.”) (citing Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000)). IT IS SO ORDERED. 05/22/2013 Date: __________________ Distribution: Electronically Registered Counsel MATTHEW E. KOCH 197336 WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels 6908 S. Old US Hwy 41 CARLISLE, IN 47838 _______________________________ Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana
]]>
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.
