Stymiest v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe, No. 3:2014cv03001 - Document 8 (D.S.D. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER denying 7 Motion to Correct Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by U.S. District Judge Charles B. Kornmann on 4/11/14. (SKK)

Download PDF
Stymiest v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe Doc. 8 FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION APR lit 2014 ****************************************************************************** * MATTHEW DAVID STYMIEST, * CIV 14-3001 * * Petitioner, * OPINION AND ORDER * -vsDENYING MOTION * ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, * * * Respondent. * ****************************************************************************** Petitioner was convicted of assault resulting in serious bodily injury and sentenced to 110 months custody. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1303, the enforcement provision of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 ("ICRA"), Pub. L. 90-284, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq., challenging three tribal court convictions on the basis that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him because he was not an Indian. He also seeks a ruling that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe does not have jurisdiction to prosecute him in the future for the conduct comprising his federal assault conviction even though his federal crime took place on the Rosebud Indian Reservation. I denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1303, without prejudice to allow petitioner to exhaust any tribal court remedies he may have. He has filed a motion to correct that order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), or pursuant to any other appropriate rule. "[A]ny motion that draws into question the correctness of the judgment is functionally a motion under [Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)], whatever its label." Norman v. Arkansas Dep't of Educ., 79 F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 1996). A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is intended to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-OT. Associates a/the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir.1998) (citing Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820,109 S.Ct. 63,102 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988)). Dockets.Justia.com Knish v. Stine, 347 F.Supp.2d 682, 685-86 (D. Minn. 2004), accord, Curtis v. NID PTY, Ltd., 248 F.Supp.2d 836, 837 (S.D. Iowa 2003). Petitioner has identified no manifest error oflaw in the order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner's motion states no basis for relief which was not already addressed and rejected in my previous order. Now, therefore, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's motion, Doc. 7, to correct is denied. Dated this JJ.t4y of April, 2014. BY THE COURT: CHARLESB.KORNMANN United States District Judge ATTEST: JOSEPH HAAS, CLERK .Q. DEP TY (SE 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.