Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
EX REL. LESLIE JOHN HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 12-C-961
CAROL L. KRAFT,
MEL S. JOHNSON,
JOHN KLUGIEWICZ, and
MICHAEL TUTEN,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff  Leslie  John  Hamilton                                                                    (“Hamilton”)  has  filed  a  motion  for
reconsideration  of  this  Court’s  December                                                         19,                                        2013,  Decision  and  Order  unsealing  his
purported qui tam action pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq., dismissing his motion to amend
and clarify, and dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction, because despite its nomenclature,
it is a successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that has not been authorized by the
Court of Appeals.  See United States v. Boyd, 591 F.3d 953, 955 (7th Cir. 2010); United States
v. Lloyd, 398 F.3d 978, 979-80 (7th Cir. 2005); Melton v. United States, 359 F.3d 855, 857
(7th Cir. 2004).   (ECF No. 12.)  Hamilton argues that the facts of his case are distinguishable
from those of Boyd and Melton.




Regardless of whether Hamilton’s motion is considered under Rule 59(e) or Rule
60                                                                                        (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it does not present a basis for relief.  Therefore,
Hamilton’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
NOW , THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
Hamilton’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 14) is DENIED; and
The Court also DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability from this
Order pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United
States District Courts.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 9th day of January, 2013.
BY THE COURT
Hon. Rudolph T. Randa
U.S. District Judge
2

Download 25615.pdf

Wisconsin Law