Miller v. Warden, USP Beaumont

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ROBERT ETHAN MILLER, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-267
§
WARDEN, USP BEAUMONT, §
§
Respondent. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Robert Ethan Miller, an inmate confined at the United States Penitentiary located
in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Discussion
The court denied and dismissed the above-styled petition on May 30, 2025. Petitioner has
filed a motion for withdrawal (#25) and a motion for reconsideration (#26). This memorandum
considers such motions.
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 non jury 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.
(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 1:24-cv-00267-MAC-CLS Document 28 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

As petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was filed within 28 days of the judgment, the
motion is timely under Rule 59. Petitioner contends the court erred in denying his petition because
he challenges the August 25, 2008, order of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia which denied equitable tolling for his § 2255 motion to vacate, not
the validity of his conviction or sentence. As set forth in the report, as well as the memorandum
adopting the report, petitioner fails to satisfy the extremely limited and unusual circumstances
necessary for granting relief in a § 2241 petition. See Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 478
(2023); Hammoud v. Ma’at, 49 F.4th 874, 879 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 580
(2023).
After careful consideration of petitioner’s motion to alter or amend judgment, the court
is of the opinion that petitioner’s motion fails to set forth a meritorious ground warranting relief
from the judgment. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (#26) should be
denied.
Additionally, petitioner filed a motion for withdrawal (#25) in which he requests the return
of $100,000,000.00 he claims to have allegedly deposited with the United States Treasury in
relation to this case and another action before the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. The court finds no validity to petitioner’s assertion of a deposit, and the
motion for withdrawal should be denied.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, petitioner’s motion to alter or amend judgment and motion
for withdrawal should be denied. It is therefore
ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to alter or amend judgment (#26) and motion for
withdrawal (#25) are DENIED.
2
Case 1:24-cv-00267-MAC-CLS Document 28 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>