IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

CHRIS SHAUGHNESSY,

Petitioner, ORDER v.

24-cv-154-jdp CHRIS BUESGEN,

Respondent.

Petitioner Chris Shaughnessy, proceeding without counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

, challenging his state-court conviction for second-degree sexual assault of a child. I dismissed his petition as untimely. Dkt. 13. Shaughnessy filed a notice of appeal and then followed with what he calls a “request for reconsideration,” stating that I refused to allow him to proceed on claims that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals “either waived or . . . ignore[d]” in its 2023 decision dismissing his appeal of his postconviction motion for resentencing. Dkt. 29, at 1. Because Shaughnessy filed his motion for reconsideration more than 28 days after the judgment, I will consider his motion as one for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). I may consider this motion without asking the court of appeals to relinquish jurisdiction over Shaughnessy’s pending appeal. Motorola Sols., Inc. v. Hytera Commc’ns Corp. Ltd.,

, 503 (7th Cir. 2024) (“during the pendency of an appeal the district court may consider a Rule 60(b) motion and if it indicates that it is inclined to grant it, application then can be made to the appellate court for a remand.” (internal quotations omitted)). I will deny Shaughnessy’s motion because it doesn’t address my reason for dismissing his petition: it was untimely and his postconviction motion filed after his habeas statute of limitations had passed didn’t reset his habeas clock. See Dkt. 13, at 3.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment, Dkt. 29, is

DENIED. Entered July 3, 2025. BY THE COURT:

/s/ _______________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge