Okpala
v.
Warden Pine Prairie Corr. Ctr.

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISIONOct 21, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-1069 (W.D. La. Oct. 21, 2016)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-1069

10-21-2016

OKEY GARRY OKPALA v. WARDEN PINE PRAIRIE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ET AL.


MAG. JUDGE PATRICK J. HANNA

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Petitioner previously filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On October 7, 2016, the Court issued a Judgment adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and denying and dismissing the Petition.

On October 13, 2016, the Clerk of Court docketed a "Motion to Submit Additional Controlling Precedent in Support of Prima Facie Claim of United States Citizenship or National in Removal Proceedings; and Motion to Expedite Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" [Doc. No. 10].

On October 17, 2016, the Clerk of Court docketed a "Motion to Reopen and to Reconsider the District Court's Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 11].

Having reviewed the filings, to the extent that Petitioner wishes to supplement the record with additional authority, the Court will permit him to do so.

However, the Court finds that he is not otherwise entitled to the relief sought. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that upon motion, a court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered earlier; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or that applying the judgment prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1)-(6).

Neither the additional authority cited by Petitioner nor any other bases asserted in his motions justify such relief. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the "Motion to Submit Additional Controlling Precedent in Support of Prima Facie Claim of United States Citizenship or National in Removal Proceedings; and Motion to Expedite Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" [Doc. No. 10] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. To the extent that Petitioner moves to supplement the record with additional authority, his motion is GRANTED. To the extent that he moves the Court to expedite the granting of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the motion is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the "Motion to Reopen and to Reconsider the District Court's Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation" [Doc. No. 11] is DENIED.

MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 21st day of October, 2016.

/s/ _________


ROBERT G. JAMES


UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE