Hatten v. United States Of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-cv-62199-BLOOM
(Case No. 90-cr-08065-COHN-9)
TIMOTHY LEE HATTEN,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on pro se Petitioner Timothy Lee Hatten’s Motion to
Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). ECF No. [5].
Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court’s Order dismissing his Petition for Writ of Error
Coram Nobis as frivolous. ECF No. [4]. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
Rule 59(e) affords the Court discretion to reconsider an order which it has entered. See
Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106, 1137 (11th Cir. 2000). While Rule 59(e) does not set forth any
specific criteria, courts have delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Bd. of Trs. of Bay Med. Ctr. v. Humana Mil.
Healthcare Servs., Inc., 447 F.3d 1370, 1377 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). A Rule 59(e)
motion cannot be used “to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, Fla.,
408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005). Rather, it “must demonstrate why the court should reconsider
its prior decision and set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to
Case 0:25-cv-62199-BB Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2025 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 25-cv-62199-BLOOM
2
reverse its prior decision.” Socialist Workers Party v. Leahy, 957 F. Supp. 1262, 1263 (S.D. Fla.
1997) (quotations omitted).
Petitioner’s Rule 59(e) Motion reiterates the substantive claim he raised in his Petition that
his now-expired convictions and sentences are unconstitutional based on language in the Eleventh
Circuit’s opinion affirming his convictions and sentences nearly thirty years ago. Petitioner
complains that this Court only addressed the merits of this substantive claim in a footnote.
Petitioner ignores the reasons for the Court’s dismissal of his Petition as frivolous. As this Court
explained, Petitioner “again rais[ed] claims that he not only raised in prior coram nobis petitions
but which he raised and were rejected on direct appeal. As the Eleventh Circuit and courts in this
District have repeatedly explained to Petitioner, coram nobis relief is not available for these claims
because such relief is available ‘only where no other remedy is available and the petitioner presents
sound reasons for failing to seek relief earlier.’” ECF No. [4] at 4–5 (quoting United States v. Mills,
221 F.3d 1201, 1204 (11th Cir. 2000)).
Petitioner uses his Rule 59(e) motion to again raise the same frivolous argument that courts
have repeatedly rejected. Despite numerous courts’ admonishments that this argument is frivolous,
Petitioner has not been deterred from filing pleadings raising this claim. Petitioner is hereby
cautioned that if he continues to waste judicial resources by filing frivolous claims that have been
repeatedly rejected, this Court is authorized to sanction him in the form of a filing restriction. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)–(c) (“By presenting to the court a pleading . . . an attorney or unrepresented
party certifies that . . . it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. . . . If, after notice and a reasonable
opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may
Case 0:25-cv-62199-BB Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2025 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 25-cv-62199-BLOOM
3
impose an appropriate sanction”); Brewer v. United States, 614 F. App’x 426, 427 (11th Cir. 2015)
(“[C]ourts are authorized to restrict access to vexatious and abusive litigants”).
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s Motion
to Alter or Amend Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), ECF No. [5], is
DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on November 17, 2025.
________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Timothy Lee Hatten, PRO SE
635 30th Street
West Palm Beach, FL 334071
Case 0:25-cv-62199-BB Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2025 Page 3 of 3