You're viewing Docket Item 37 from the case Stiger v. Haynes. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:13-cv-00025-SWW Document 37 Filed 10/07/13 Page 1 of 2

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

THOMAS HAROLD STIGER,
Reg #39053-115

v.

Petitioner

ANTHONY HAYNES, Warden,
FCI - Forrest City

Respondent

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

ORDER

No. 2:13CV00025-SWW-JJV

By order entered July 31, 2013, the Court adopted the Proposed Findings and

Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe,

recommending that the petition in this case be dismissed with prejudice.1 The Court adopted

Judge Volpe’s recommendation after the time for filing objections had expired, and as noted in

order of dismissal, no objections were filed.

After dismissal, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 34), asking the

Court to vacate the judgment on the ground that the Court failed to mail him a copy of the

Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition. According to the electronic receipt

associated with the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, the Clerk of the Court

mailed Petitioner a copy of the filing on July 9, 2013, but it appears that Petitioner never

received the mailing.

1Petitioner is an inmate at the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Forrest City Correctional

Institution, and he filed this action seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that he
has been eligible for Residential Re-entry Center (RRC) placement since September 21, 2012,
and for home confinement on March 22, 2013, but that he is being “unlawfully deprived” of his
RRC placement in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and the Second Chance Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3624.

Case 2:13-cv-00025-SWW Document 37 Filed 10/07/13 Page 2 of 2

Based on Petitioner’s representations, the Court treats his motion for reconsideration as a

motion for relief under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 Rule 60 lists several

specific grounds for relief from a final judgment and also provides that relief is available for

“any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).

Accepting Petitioner’s representation that he never received a copy of the recommended

disposition entered July 9, 2013, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall

mail Petitioner a copy of the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition entered in this

case on July 9, 2013 (ECF #29), along with a copy of this order. Petitioner has up to and

including fourteen (14) days from the date of this order in which to file objections to the

Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition. The Court will consider any timely-filed

objections in deciding Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.

/s/Susan Webber Wright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2Petitioner filed a notice of appeal while the motion for reconsideration was pending.

Because the Court construes the motion for reconsideration as a motion for relief from judgment
under Rule 60, the notice of appeal does not prevent the Court from considering Petitioner’s
post-judgment motion, and the notice of appeal will become effective only after the Court
disposes of Petitioner’s motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4).

2