Horn v. Kansas, 16-3156-CM. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Kansas
Number: infdco20181221f19
Visitors: 18
Filed: Dec. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 20, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CARLOS MURGUIA , District Judge . Theodore Vincent Horn II, a prisoner housed by the Kansas Department of Corrections, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1). Petitioner was convicted in state court of first degree murder and sought a writ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. This court denied the 2254 petition and entered judgment against petitioner on December 7, 2018. On December 17, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion to
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CARLOS MURGUIA , District Judge . Theodore Vincent Horn II, a prisoner housed by the Kansas Department of Corrections, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1). Petitioner was convicted in state court of first degree murder and sought a writ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. This court denied the 2254 petition and entered judgment against petitioner on December 7, 2018. On December 17, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion to r..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CARLOS MURGUIA, District Judge.
Theodore Vincent Horn II, a prisoner housed by the Kansas Department of Corrections, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1). Petitioner was convicted in state court of first degree murder and sought a writ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This court denied the § 2254 petition and entered judgment against petitioner on December 7, 2018. On December 17, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion to reconsider (Doc. 27).
Presumably, petitioner intends to file a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. See D. Kan. Rule 7.3(a) ("Parties seeking reconsideration of dispositive orders or judgments must file a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60.") A party must file a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) within twenty-eight days of judgment. The court is without authority to extend the time periods specified in Rule 59(e). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); Weitz v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 214 F.3d 1175, 1179 (10th Cir. 2000); see also Collard v. United States, 10 F.3d 718, 719 (10th Cir. 1993) ("Rule 6(b) expressly prohibits a trial court from extending the time to file [a Rule 59(e)] motion."). The court therefore denies petitioner's motion for extension of time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motion for extension of time (Doc. 27) is denied.
Source: Leagle
