govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-1_15-cr-00012-16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
WESTERN DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  : Case No. 1:15-cr-12 
       : Civil Case No. 1:17-cv-788 
  Plaintiff,    : 
       : District Judge Timothy S. Black 
:  
vs.       : Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 
       : 
CHRISTOPHER LEE CORNELL   : 
 nka Raheel Mahrus Ubaydah,   : 
       : 
  Defendant.    : 
 
DECISION AND ORDER 
 
 
 This case under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is before the Court on Defendant’s Objections (captioned 
“Motion in Opposition of R&R ”)(Doc. 285) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 
Recommendations (Doc. 284) recommending striking Defendant’s Motion to Amend or  Alter 
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)(Doc. 283). 
 As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the 
Report de novo with particular attention to those portions objected to by Petitioner.  
 The Report recommends striking the Rule 59(e) Motion because it was untimely filed (Doc. 
284, PageID 2588).  The Magistrate Judge noted that “Although Cornell’s  Certificate of Service 
claims he mailed the Motion on April 2, 2026 (PageID 2584), the  document was not postmarked 
until April 15, 2026 (PageID 2585).” Id.  
 
 
Case: 1:15-cr-00012-TSB-MRM Doc #: 286 Filed: 05/18/26 Page: 1 of 4  PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 
 
 Defendant objects:   
Ubaydah did in fact file a timely Rule 59(e) motion (Doc. No. 283) 
in response to the Rule 60(b) denial, submitted on April 02, 2026 
(22 days), arguing that there had been a "manifest injustice" within 
the ruling by the District Court.  Beets [sic] v. Costco Wholesale 
Corp., 558 F.3d 461 , 474 (6th Cir. 2009).  Ubaydah's Certificate 
of Service was correctly marked: April 02, 2026. Any delay was 
not Ubaydah, but may have been an issue regarding the prison 
mailing system, which can be excused. Even more, Ubaydah is a 
pro-se litigant and his filings are "held to less stringent standards 
then [sic] those prepared by attorneys". Samples v. Bank of Am., 
N.A., No. 3:12-cv-44, 2012 U.S. Dist LEXIS 52849, 2012 WL 
1309, 13T al *2 (E.D. Tenn. April 16, 2012). 
 
(Doc. 285, PageID 2593).   
 
 Defendant’s Rule 59(e) Motion contains the following Certificate of Service “ I, 
Christopher Lee Cornell (nka Raheel Mahrus Ubaydah), Prisoner No. 72795- 061, hereby certify 
that this Rule 59(e) motion was mailed to the Clerk of the Court this 2nd day of April 2026” (Doc. 
283, PageID 2584).  Defendant now seems to be claiming, instead, that he deposited the Motion 
in the prison mailing system on April 2, 2026.  That would make the filing timely under the so-
called prison mailbox rule.  Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988) ).  The Court will accept the 
suggested amendment of the Certificate of Service and find the Rule 59(e) Motion was timely 
filed.  The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Motion be stricken is OVERRULED1. 
 
1 In support of lenience in applying the time limits of Rule 59(e) motions to pro se litigants, Defendant cites Samples 
v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 3:12-cv-44, 2012 U.S. Dist LEXIS 52849, 2012 WL 1309, 13T al *2 (E.D. Tenn. April 16, 
2012).  The Ohio prison system has obviously given inmates access to electronic legal databases.  How else would 
Defendant know of Samples.  However, it has not taught them to read cases so as not to cite them for propositions for 
which they do not stand.  Samples merely recites the familiar proposition that pro se filings are to be construed 
liberally, not that they are entitled to lenience in the application of rules for timely filling.  Compare Haines v. Kerner, 
404 U.S. 519 (1972); Urbina v. Thoms, 270 F.3d 292, 295 (6th Cir. 2001).  However, "[w]here, for example, a pro se 
litigant fails to comply with an easily understood court-imposed deadline, there is no basis for treating that party more 
generously than a represented litigant."   Pilgrim v. Littlefield , 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996)(Norris, J.), citing 
Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991).   
 
 
Case: 1:15-cr-00012-TSB-MRM Doc #: 286 Filed: 05/18/26 Page: 2 of 4  PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 
 
 The Report correctly states the standard for deciding a Rule 59(e) motion : “there must be 
‘(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling 
law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.’” Betts v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 558 F.3d 461, 
474 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Sch., 469 F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir. 
2006))” (Doc. 284, PageID 2587). 
 In his Motion to Amend, Defendant sought relief from the Court’s Decision and Order of 
March 12, 2025 which found “Defendant’s first Rule 60(b)  Motion (Doc. 269) moot and it is 
denied on that basis. ” (Doc. 283, PageID 2553; emphasis in original.)  The Report noted that 
Defendant had not responded in his Rule 59(e) Motion to this mootness finding ( Doc. No. 284, 
PageID 2588).  The Objections do not cure this defect.  Instead Defendant argues 
The District Court erred when it refused to consider Ubaydah's 
legal and factual points - "point-by-point". The District Court 
blindly accepted the Court of Appeals Order filed December 30, 
2025 (Doc. No. 11-1) and denied the Rule 60(b) motion.  
 
(Doc. 285, PageID 2593).  He then proceeds to assert without analysis that his Rule 60(b) motion 
was not moot.  Id. at PageID 2594.   
He argues at four places that this Court “blindly” accepted the Sixth Circuit’s decision.  
Whether blind or clear sighted, a District Court has a sworn duty under the Constitution to accept 
a decision of the circuit Court of Appeals.  Correction of decisions of the circuit courts lies with 
them on a motion for reconsideration or with the Supreme Court of the United States.  
Defendant then proceeds to re -argue at length the merits of his case ( Doc. 285, PageID 
2596-2599).  That is not the proper function of a Rule 59(e) motion.  Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of 
Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6
th Cir. 1998)(citation omitted).    
Defendant’s Objections on the merits are OVERRULED and his Rule 59(e) motion is 
DENIED. 
Case: 1:15-cr-00012-TSB-MRM Doc #: 286 Filed: 05/18/26 Page: 3 of 4  PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Date: _____________________ ________________________ 
 T
imothy S. Black 
 United States District Judge 
5/18/2026 s/Timothy S. Black
Case: 1:15-cr-00012-TSB-MRM Doc #: 286 Filed: 05/18/26 Page: 4 of 4  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight