Hill v. Mississippi, 3:16CV61-NBB-JMV. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20180315d64
Visitors: 21
Filed: Mar. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING STATE'S MOTION [19] TO CLARIFY, REINSTATING MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL JUDGMENT NEAL B. BIGGERS , Senior District Judge . This matter comes before the court on the motion [19] by the State to clarify the court's order [18] granting the petitioner's motion [15] for reconsideration. The State's motion, as urged, operates as a motion for reconsideration. The petitioner argued in his motion that he did not receive a copy of the State's May 17, 2016, motion to dismiss
Summary: ORDER DENYING STATE'S MOTION [19] TO CLARIFY, REINSTATING MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL JUDGMENT NEAL B. BIGGERS , Senior District Judge . This matter comes before the court on the motion [19] by the State to clarify the court's order [18] granting the petitioner's motion [15] for reconsideration. The State's motion, as urged, operates as a motion for reconsideration. The petitioner argued in his motion that he did not receive a copy of the State's May 17, 2016, motion to dismiss...
More
ORDER DENYING STATE'S MOTION [19] TO CLARIFY, REINSTATING MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL JUDGMENT
NEAL B. BIGGERS, Senior District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on the motion [19] by the State to clarify the court's order [18] granting the petitioner's motion [15] for reconsideration. The State's motion, as urged, operates as a motion for reconsideration. The petitioner argued in his motion that he did not receive a copy of the State's May 17, 2016, motion to dismiss. The court then held its memorandum opinion and final judgment in abeyance to provide the petitioner a chance to respond to the motion to dismiss. The State then sought clarification of the court's order, noting that the petitioner had signed and returned a form acknowledging receipt of the motion to dismiss. The petitioner later responded to the motion to dismiss.
Though the State is correct that the petitioner returned the acknowledgment form, the court will nonetheless consider his response to the motion to dismiss. As such, the instant motion [19] to clarify (which operates as a motion for reconsideration) is DENIED.
In addition, as the petitioner's response merely reiterates the arguments in his petition, the court REINSTATES its previous memorandum opinion [12], final judgment [13], and certificate of appealability [14]. The instant petition is thus DISMISSED with prejudice both as successive and as untimely filed.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
