Fishman v. Sessions

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STEPHEN FISHMAN,
Petitioner,
v. Civil Action No. 18-521 (RDM)
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, United States
Attorney General,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 5, 2018, Petitioner Stephen Fishman, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by
filing a pleading captioned “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person Detained in Federal
Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . . . and . . . Petition for Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to
20 U.S.C. § 2201.” Dkt. 1 at 1. The relief Petitioner sought included a declaratory judgment that
he is being imprisoned illegally, an order directing his release from prison, an award of
“traveling funds” upon his release, and an award of damages of $1,565,217.39 for each day of
unlawful confinement. Dkt. 1 at 12, 158–59. On April 19, 2018, this Court issued an order sua
sponte dismissing Petitioner’s claims for damages and “traveling funds” and transferring his
petition for release from custody to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
where he is incarcerated. See Dkt. 4. In its memorandum opinion, the Court explained that
Petitioner’s claims for “traveling funds” and damages were not properly asserted in a petition for
writ of habeas corpus and that, in any event, a prisoner may not bring a claim for damages that
turns on the lawfulness of the prisoner’s confinement, without first succeeding on a habeas
challenge to his or her confinement. Dkt. 3 at 2–3. In addition, the Court concluded that
Fishman’s habeas petition named the wrong respondent and was brought in the wrong
jurisdiction. Id. at 3–4.
Petitioner has now filed two motions to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e), for default judgment pursuant to Rule 56, and to amend the Court’s
findings and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(b). See Dkt. 5; Dkt. 6. Many of Petitioner’s
assertions in these motions—which are both over eighty pages long—are difficult to follow. It
appears, however, that he is arguing that the Court did not properly consider the
“Uncontroverted, Uncontested, and Untraversed” “evidence” he submitted, see Dkt. 6 at 14, 22,
26, 62–81, and that the Court incorrectly held that the petition was brought against the wrong
respondent in the wrong jurisdiction, Dkt. 5 at 34–50, 57–60; Dkt. 6 at 34–50, because he is “not
challenging the legality of his sentence,” but rather is challenging the “legality of the detention,”
and “conditions of [his] confinement,” Dkt. 5 at 53–56. Yet, however phrased, it is clear that
Fishman seeks release from prison and does not merely seek to alter the conditions of his
confinement. See Dkt. 5 at 13 (seeking declaratory judgment that his
“confinement/custody/detention” is “unlawful”); Dkt. 6 at 13 (same).
Several weeks later, Petitioner filed yet a further pleading—this time a “Motion for
Immediate Determination” of his previous motions. See Dkt. 8. And several weeks after that,
Petitioner filed a “Motion for Demand for Clarification” requesting that the Court issue an order
to show cause to the Respondent, again on the ground that the Court incorrectly held that his
petition was brought against the wrong respondent in the wrong jurisdiction. See Dkt. 10.
A Rule 59(e) motion must demonstrate that “there [has been] an intervening change of
controlling law,” “new evidence” has become available, “or [there is a] need to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.” Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996)
2
(per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Such motions are “generally disfavored” absent
“extraordinary circumstances,” Dage v. Johnson, 537 F. Supp. 2d 43, 48 (D.D.C. 2008) (internal
quotations omitted), and do not represent an opportunity “to reargue facts and theories upon
which a court has already ruled,” New York v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 37, 38 (D.D.C. 1995).
Upon review of Petitioner’s multiple motions, the Court concludes that he has fallen far short of
meeting the high bar on a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner’s motions largely rehash the
arguments he made in his original petition, and he has otherwise failed to identify any
extraordinary circumstances, changes in controlling law, or errors made by the Court that would
warrant relief under Rule 59(e).
Accordingly, Petitioner’s motions to alter or amend judgment, for default judgment, and
to amend the Court’s findings and conclusions of law, Dkt. 5; Dkt. 6, are DENIED. For the
same reasons, Petitioner’s motion for demand for clarification, Dkt. 10, is DENIED, and his
motion for immediate determination, Dkt. 8, is DENIED as moot.
/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge
Date: July 31, 2018
3