Jeffrey Spivack v. United States

Summary

The court affirmed dismissal of Spivack's second habeas petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because his first petition had already been adjudicated on the merits and he had not obtained authorization to file another petition. It held that the district court was not bound by its earlier temporary case-management characterization of the filing as a motion to amend, and that amendment under Rule 15 was unavailable after final judgment. The court also affirmed denial of Spivack's Rule 59(e) motion because it merely repeated previously presented arguments.