UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
IVAN REA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) No. 1:11-cv-01193-JPH-TAB
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER DIRECTING TREATMENT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Ivan Rea seeks reconsideration of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. "Any motion filed in the district court that imposed the sentence, and
substantively within the scope of § 2255 ¶ 1, is a motion under § 2255, no
matter what title the prisoner plasters on the cover." Melton v. United States,
359 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2004); Hare v. United States, 688 F.3d 878, 880
n.3 (7th Cir. 2012) (A court should "look at the substance of a motion rather
than its title to determine whether it is a successive collateral attack" in order
"to police attempted end-runs around the successive petition limitations of §
2255 by restyling motions in different ways"). This includes a motion for
reconsideration under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531 (2005) (holding that a post-judgment
motion that raises a new ground for relief from a conviction or attacks the
Court's previous resolution of a ground for relief is a successive habeas
petition).
The clerk shall therefore open a new civil action in the Indianapolis
Division and re-docket the motion for reconsideration, dkt. [32], as the
defendant's motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Nature of Suit
of the new civil action will be 510 and the Cause of Action will be 28:2255. A
copy of this Order shall likewise be docketed in the newly opened action.
Insofar as filed in this case, the motion for reconsideration, dkt. [32], is
denied without prejudice except to the extent that a new civil action will be
opened.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 9/23/2024 jams Patnick \bawlove
James Patrick Hanlon
United States District Judge
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution:
Ivan Rea
08492-028
USP Hazelton
U.S. Penitentiary
P.O. Box 2000
Bruceton Mills, WV 26525
All Electronically Registered Counsel
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.