United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
STAN BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court are pro se Petitioner Robert
Danenberg's Motions to Vacate Judgment, (docs. 10, 14),
and Motion for Reconsideration, (doc. 15). In his Motions,
Danenberg requests that the Court alter or vacate its earlier
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.
(See id.). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court DENIES Petitioner's Motions.
November 29, 2018, Petitioner Danenberg filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
(Doc. 1.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that
Danenberg's petition be dismissed because he failed to
exhaust his state remedies, a precondition of federal habeas
relief. (Doc. 4.) On January 15, 2019, the Court issued an
Order adopting the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge over Danenberg's objection. (Doc. 6.)
Before the entry of final judgment, however, Danenberg moved
to stay his petition until he hired local counsel to assist
in his state court proceedings. (Doc. 7.) The Court entered
judgment and ordered the case closed on January 24,
2019. (Doc. 8.) The Court denied Danenberg's
Motion to Stay on January 30, 2019. (Doc. 9.) Danenberg then
filed the at-issue motions: a Motion to Vacate Judgment and
brief in support thereof, (doc. 10; doc. 12), a second Motion
to Vacate Judgment, (doc. 14), and a Motion for
Reconsideration, (doc. 15). The Motions are handwritten and
difficult to decipher; however, from what the Court can
gather, Danenberg requests that the Court reopen his case to
reconsider his Motion to Stay. (See Doc. 12-1, p. 5;
doc 15-1, pp. 2-3.)
they were filed post-judgment, Danenberg's motions fall
within the purview of either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) or 60(b). Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers
Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 n.5 (11th Cir.
1993). Under Rule 59(e), “the only grounds for granting
a [plaintiff's] motion are newly-discovered evidence or
manifest errors of law or fact.” Jacobs v.
Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th
Cir. 2010). Rule 60(b), on the other hand, enumerates a
limited set of circumstances in which a party may seek relief
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding-none of which
apply here. The rule also contains a
“catchall” provision which authorizes relief
based on “any other reason that justifies [it].”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). However, relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is
an “extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon
a showing of exceptional circumstances, ” and a party
seeking relief must show that, absent such relief, extreme
and unexpected hardship will result. Griffin v. Swim-Tech
Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984) (citation
Danenberg has not indicated which rule or rules he believes
support his motions, the distinction is immaterial in this
case. Danenberg has not shown-and does not argue-that new
evidence, manifest error, or exceptional circumstances
entitle him to relief, and he does not claim he will suffer
“extreme hardship” should his requests be denied.
See, e.g., Griffin, 722 F.2d at 680. To the
contrary, the Court dismissed his petition without prejudice
and Danenberg remains free to file a new habeas petition in
federal court when he has exhausted the available state
remedies. (Doc. 4; doc. 6.) Danenberg may be unhappy with the
Court's decisions to dismiss his petition and deny his
Motion to Stay, but mere discontent is not a reason to
disturb the Court's judgment.
light of the foregoing, Danenberg has failed to demonstrate
that any grounds for reconsideration exist and the Court
discerns no reason to reopen this case. Accordingly, the
Court DENIES Danenberg's Motions to
Vacate, (doc. 10; doc. 14), and DENIES his
Motion for Reconsideration, (doc. 15). The Court's
January 15, 2019 Order remains the Order of the Court, and
this case remains CLOSED.
 Although the Court's Order and
Judgment were silent on the nature of the dismissal, the
Report and Recommendation made clear that it was without
prejudice. (See Doc. 4, p. 3).
 The specific circumstances listed in
Rule 60(b) are: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that,
with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in
time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . .
., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4)
the judgment is void; [and] (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released, or discharged, it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been ...