The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHRISTOPHER BROWN,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 21-CV-1460
RANDALL HEPP,
Respondent.
ORDER
On March 14, 2022, the respondent moved to dismiss Christopher Brown’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1.) On April 11, 2022, Brown requested
additional time to respond to the motion. (ECF No. 11.) The court granted that motion
and ordered him to respond no later than May 13, 2022. (ECF No. 12.) Brown failed to
respond. On June 2, 2022, the court gave Brown a final opportunity to respond to the
motion. The court ordered him to respond no later than June 30, 2022, and it informed
him that failure to respond may result in the court granting the motion to dismiss. (ECF
No. 13.) Again, Brown failed to respond. On July 15, 2022, the court granted the
respondent’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 14.)
On July 22, 2022, Brown filed a motion for reconsideration. Because the motion
was filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment, the court construes the motion as one
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “The purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is to
allow a party to bring to the district court’s attention a manifest error of fact or law so
that it may correct, or at least address, the error in the first instance.” A&C Constr. &
Installation, Co. WLL v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 963 F.3d 705, 709 (7th Cir. 2020). “A Rule 59(e)
motion, however, ‘does not allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance
arguments that could and should have been presented to the district court prior to the
judgment.’” Id. (quoting Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th
Cir. 2000)).
Brown states in his motion:
On 7-18-22 I received notice that my motion was denied because I failed to
respond to the Respondents motion to dismiss.
Because my motion wouldnt have reached me in a timely Fashion it was
still submitted to both emails of Sarah Burgundy & Winn Collins dated 6-
28-22 by an outside source Im asking that the courts please reconsider this
decision.
(ECF No. 16.)
Brown’s motion is unclear. But he has failed to demonstrate manifest error of law
or fact sufficient to merit setting aside the judgment. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Brown’s motion for reconsideration (ECF
No. 16) is denied.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 19th day of August, 2022.
a & g ¢
WILLIAM E. DUFFI
U.S. Magistrate Judge