United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
A. Gibney, Jr., United States District Judge
Oden, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed a
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("§ 2241
Petition"). On November 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that
Oden's § 2241 Petition be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. In the Report and Recommendation, the Court
advised Oden that if he wished to file objections, he must do
so within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation.
Oden filed objections. By Memorandum Opinion and Order
entered on January 11, 2016, the Court adopted the Report and
Recommendation, overruled Oden's objections, and
dismissed the § 2241 Petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Oden v. Wilson, No. 3:15CV196, 2016 WL 183469, at
*6(E.D.Va. Jan. 11, 2016).
March 11, 2016, the Court received a "Motion for
Recon[s]ideration and [Certificate of Appealability
(COA)]" from Oden. (ECF No. 30.) By Memorandum Opinion
and Order entered on October 5, 2016, the Court construed
this motion as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b) ("Rule 60(b) Motion") because it was filed
outside of the twenty-eight day period permitted for motions
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. (ECF No. 32,
at 1 (citations omitted).) The Court denied Oden's motion
as an improper attempt to relitigate the claims raised in his
§ 2241 Petition. (Id. at 2 (citations
omitted).) The Court also denied Oden's request that the
Court issue a COA because a COA "is not needed to appeal
the dismissal or denial of a petition brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241." (Id. at 3 (citations
October 28, 2016, the Court received a "Motion for
Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 59(e)" from Oden.
("Rule 59(e) Motion, " ECF No. 34.)
of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy
which should be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co. v.
Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.
1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). The United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognizes three
grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): "(1) to accommodate
an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for
new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a
clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice."
Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir.
1993) (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., 771
F.Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991); Atkins v. Marathon
LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D.Miss. 1990)).
Rule 59(e) Motion, Oden requests that the Court equitably
toll his time period for filing a motion under Rule 59(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so that the Court can
reconsider his Rule 60(b) Motion as one brought under Rule
59(e). (Rule 59(e) Mot. 2.) According to Oden, he
"[i]mmediately . . . started preparing his [Rule 60(b)
Motion]" upon receipt of this Court's Order
dismissing his § 2241 Petition. (Id.) Oden
claims that on February 1, 2016, he was placed in segregation
and did not have access to his legal papers. (Id.)
Oden's legal papers were not returned to him until he was
released from segregation in March 2016, "well past the
28 day window to file his [Rule 60(b) Motion]."
(Id.) Oden also claims that he did not have access
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the law
library computer was broken. (Id. at 3.)
Essentially, Oden requests that the Court equitably toll the
twenty-eight-day period because he was allegedly denied his
right to access the courts. (Id.)
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[a] motion to
alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days
after the entry of the judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). A
court cannot, under any circumstances, extend the time for
filing a Rule 59(e) motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(2) ("A
court must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and
(d), 52(b), 59(b), (d), and (e), and 60(b).");
Goodman v. Everett, 388 F.App'x 269, 270 (4th
Cir. 2010) (noting that "the district court is without
jurisdiction to extend [the] time period" established by
Rule 59(e)"). Therefore, the Court cannot equitably toll
the time period for filing a Rule 59(e) motion and cannot
reconsider Oden's Rule 60(b) Motion as a motion brought
pursuant to Rule 59(e). Accordingly, Oden's Rule 59(e)
Motion (ECF No. 34) will be DENIED.
alternative, Oden asks that the Court retroactively construe
his Request for a COA as a Notice of Appeal. (Rule 59(e) Mot.
5.) Oden claims that he incorrectly believed that he needed a
certificate of appealability to file an appeal. (Id.
at 1.) The Request for a COA that Oden filed on January 26,
2016 was withdrawn per Oden's instructions on February 1,
2016. (ECF Nos. 24, 25.) Oden filed a new Request for a COA
on March 11, 2016. (ECF No. 30.) Oden has provided no
authority to suggest that the Court is able to construe
retroactively a request for a COA as a timely filed Notice of
Appeal. Accordingly, Oden's request will be DENIED. To
the extent that Oden wishes to file a Notice of Appeal of the
Court's January 11, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order, he
must note his appeal explicitly.
appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
 Even if the Court could construe
Oden's Rule 60(b) Motion as a motion under Rule 59(e), a
"Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to relitigate old
matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment."
Pac. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403 (quoting 11 Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 1810.1, at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995)). As
noted above, Oden's Rule 60(b) ...