Molina-Uribe v. Warden, FCI Beaumont Low

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
FELIPE MOLINA-URIBE §
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv91
WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT LOW §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Felipe Molina-Uribe, an inmate confined at the Beaumont FCI Low, proceeding
pro se, brought the above-styled petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court denied and dismissed
the petition on March 13, 2025.
After the judgment was entered, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file
objections to the report recommending dismissal [Dkt. 21]. Additionally, petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration of the final judgment [Dkt. 22]. Further, petitioner filed objections to the report
on March 28, 2025.
Analysis
FED. R. CIV. P. 59 provides in pertinent part the following:
(a)(1) Grounds for New Trial. The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or
some of the issues - and to any party - as follows:
(A) after a jury trial, for any of reason for which a new trial has heretofore been
granted in an action at law in federal court; or
(B) after a nonjury trial, for any reason for which a rehearing has heretofore been
granted in a suit in equity in federal court.
(2) Further Action After a Nonjury Trial. After a nonjury trial the court may, on
motion for a new trial, open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional
testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones, and
direct the entry of a new judgment.
(b) Time to File a Motion for a New Trial. A motion for a new trial must be filed
no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.
(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment
must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.
Case 1:23-cv-00091-MJT-ZJH Document 24 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was filed eleven days after the final judgment was
filed. Accordingly, the motion will be considered under Rule 59.
Petitioner requests reconsideration of the judgment because he claims prison officials
hindered the delivery of his mail. A review of the docket reveals the report was mailed to petitioner
on February 20, 2025. After receiving no objections more than twenty days later, the court adopted
the report. Petitioner, however, alleges that the delivery of the magistrate judge’s February 20, 2025
report was delayed by the Bureau of Prisons. Petitioner claims he did not actually receive the report
until March 11, 2025. Petitioner states he also filed a motion for extension of time on March 11,
2025. Petitioner’s motion, however, did not contain the date on which he delivered the document
to prison officials for mailing.1 Thus, the motion and petitioner’s objections were not timely filed.
After careful consideration of petitioner’s pro se status and the unique circumstances in this
case, the Court is of the opinion that petitioner’s motion warrants relief from the judgment to be able
to file more complete objections and have his objections considered by the court. Additionally, the
parties should be provided an opportunity to brief the status of discovery and petitioner’s FOIA
request and appeal. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration should be granted in this
regard.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration should be granted to
the extent that he shall have an opportunity to file objections after the respondent has briefed the
status of petitioner’s FOIA request and appeal. It is
ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for extension of time is DENIED as untimely. It is
further
1 Petitioner’s Certificate of Service in the motion does not contain the date on which the document was delivered
to prison officials for mailing. Thus, the motion does not substantially comport with the statute governing unsworn
declarations under penalty of perjury and does not satisfy the requirements of the prison mailbox rule, under which a pro se
prisoner’s pleading is considered filed when the document was placed in the prison mailing system. See Liao v. Bondi, 162
F.4th 591, 526 (5th Cir. 2025); see also Spotville v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374, 376 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266 (1988) and Cooper v. Brookshire, 70 F.3d 377, 379 (5th Cir. 1998)).
2
Case 1:23-cv-00091-MJT-ZJH Document 24 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration [Dkt. 22] is GRANTED to allow the
parties an opportunity to brief the status of petitioner’s request for discovery, as well as petitioner’s
FOIA request and appeal. The respondent shall, within twenty (20) days from the date set forth
below, file a brief addressing the status and merit of petitioner’s allegations concerning his request
for discovery, as well as his FOIA request and appeal. Petitioner’s reply and objections to the report,
if any, shall be filed no later than twenty (20) days after the respondent’s brief is filed.
3
____________________________
Michael J. Truncale
United States District Judge
SIGNED this 2nd day of March, 2026.
Case 1:23-cv-00091-MJT-ZJH Document 24 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>