UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STEPHEN FISHMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, United States 

Attorney General,

Respondent.

 Civil Action No. 18-521 (RDM)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On March 5, 2018, Petitioner Stephen Fishman, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by 

filing a pleading captioned “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person Detained in Federal 

Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . . . and . . . Petition for Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to 

20 U.S.C. § 2201.” Dkt. 1 at 1. The relief Petitioner sought included a declaratory judgment that 

he is being imprisoned illegally, an order directing his release from prison, an award of

“traveling funds” upon his release, and an award of damages of $1,565,217.39 for each day of 

unlawful confinement. Dkt. 1 at 12, 158–59. On April 19, 2018, this Court issued an order sua 

sponte dismissing Petitioner’s claims for damages and “traveling funds” and transferring his 

petition for release from custody to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 

where he is incarcerated. See Dkt. 4. In its memorandum opinion, the Court explained that 

Petitioner’s claims for “traveling funds” and damages were not properly asserted in a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus and that, in any event, a prisoner may not bring a claim for damages that 

turns on the lawfulness of the prisoner’s confinement, without first succeeding on a habeas 

challenge to his or her confinement. Dkt. 3 at 2–3. In addition, the Court concluded that 
2

Fishman’s habeas petition named the wrong respondent and was brought in the wrong 

jurisdiction. Id. at 3–4. 

Petitioner has now filed two motions to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 59(e), for default judgment pursuant to Rule 56, and to amend the Court’s 

findings and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(b). See Dkt. 5; Dkt. 6. Many of Petitioner’s

assertions in these motions—which are both over eighty pages long—are difficult to follow. It 

appears, however, that he is arguing that the Court did not properly consider the 

“Uncontroverted, Uncontested, and Untraversed” “evidence” he submitted, see Dkt. 6 at 14, 22, 

26, 62–81, and that the Court incorrectly held that the petition was brought against the wrong 

respondent in the wrong jurisdiction, Dkt. 5 at 34–50, 57–60; Dkt. 6 at 34–50, because he is “not 

challenging the legality of his sentence,” but rather is challenging the “legality of the detention,” 

and “conditions of [his] confinement,” Dkt. 5 at 53–56. Yet, however phrased, it is clear that 

Fishman seeks release from prison and does not merely seek to alter the conditions of his 

confinement. See Dkt. 5 at 13 (seeking declaratory judgment that his 

“confinement/custody/detention” is “unlawful”); Dkt. 6 at 13 (same). 

Several weeks later, Petitioner filed yet a further pleading—this time a “Motion for 

Immediate Determination” of his previous motions. See Dkt. 8. And several weeks after that, 

Petitioner filed a “Motion for Demand for Clarification” requesting that the Court issue an order 

to show cause to the Respondent, again on the ground that the Court incorrectly held that his

petition was brought against the wrong respondent in the wrong jurisdiction. See Dkt. 10.

A Rule 59(e) motion must demonstrate that “there [has been] an intervening change of 

controlling law,” “new evidence” has become available, “or [there is a] need to correct a clear 

error or prevent manifest injustice.” Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) 
3

(per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Such motions are “generally disfavored” absent 

“extraordinary circumstances,” Dage v. Johnson, 537 F. Supp. 2d 43, 48 (D.D.C. 2008) (internal 

quotations omitted), and do not represent an opportunity “to reargue facts and theories upon 

which a court has already ruled,” New York v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 37, 38 (D.D.C. 1995). 

Upon review of Petitioner’s multiple motions, the Court concludes that he has fallen far short of 

meeting the high bar on a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner’s motions largely rehash the 

arguments he made in his original petition, and he has otherwise failed to identify any 

extraordinary circumstances, changes in controlling law, or errors made by the Court that would 

warrant relief under Rule 59(e). 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motions to alter or amend judgment, for default judgment, and 

to amend the Court’s findings and conclusions of law, Dkt. 5; Dkt. 6, are DENIED. For the 

same reasons, Petitioner’s motion for demand for clarification, Dkt. 10, is DENIED, and his 

motion for immediate determination, Dkt. 8, is DENIED as moot.

 /s/ Randolph D. Moss

 RANDOLPH D. MOSS 

 United States District Judge 

Date: July 31, 2018