Smith v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 40

ORDER: Before the court are Petitioner's Motions for Leave to Object to the Recommendation (Docs. 38 - 39 .) The motions are due to be denied as untimely insofar as Petitioner seeks leave to file objections to the Recommendation. For Petitioner s benefit, however, the motions will be construed as containing a singular motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Because Petitioner has presented no grounds that entitle him to relief under Rule 59(e), it is ORDERED that his motion to alter or amend the judgment (Docs. 38 - 39 ) is DENIED as further set out in the order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/8/2015. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICKEY RANDALL WREX
SMITH,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:12-CV-1006-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
Before the court are Petitioner’s motions for leave to object to the
Recommendation. (Docs. # 38–39.) The motions are due to be denied as untimely
insofar as Petitioner seeks leave to file objections to the Recommendation. For
Petitioner’s benefit, however, the motions will be construed as containing a
singular motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). For the reasons that follow, the Rule 59(e) motion is due to be
denied.
A.

Motions for Leave to Object to the Recommendation
On January 8, 2015, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation that

Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion be denied because it was not filed within the
applicable statute of limitations and because Petitioner presented no grounds to
warrant equitable tolling. Final judgment has been entered twice in this case, once

on February 3, 2015, and once on March 19, 2015. Both judgments were entered
based upon an independent review of the record and after Petitioner failed to file
timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. On February 13,
2015, the court vacated the February 3, 2015 judgment based upon Petitioner’s
emergency motion for an extension of time to file objections and gave Petitioner
until March 2, 2015, to file objections. The March 2 deadline passed, however,
without receipt of any objections from Petitioner; hence, on March 19, final
judgment was entered again. Petitioner indicates in his motions for leave to object,
which were received and docketed on March 31, 2015, that he received the Order
granting him an extension of time on February 22, 2015. He did not file his
objections, though, until March 13, 2015, eleven days after the March 2 extended
deadline.1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for leave to
object to the Recommendation (Docs. # 38–39) are DENIED as untimely.
B.

Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment
While Petitioner’s objections are untimely, the court will construe the

motions for leave to object as containing a singular motion to alter or amend the
judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). Rule 59(e) authorizes the filing of a motion to
alter or amend a judgment after its entry. This rule provides no specific grounds
1

The March 13, 2015 filing date is based upon Petitioner’s representation that he
delivered his objections to prison authorities for mailing on that date. See Day v. Hall, 528 F.3d
1315, 1318 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Under the mailbox rule . . . a prisoner’s pleading is considered
filed on the date the prisoner delivers such to prison authorities for filing.”).
2

for relief, and “[t]he decision to alter or amend judgment is committed to the sound
discretion of the district judge.” Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs.,
Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1238–39 (11th Cir. 1985). In the Eleventh Circuit, grounds
for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly discovered evidence, an intervening
change in controlling law, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice. See Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007); Am. Tower,
L.P. v. City of Huntsville, Ala., No. CV-99-B-2933-NE, 2000 WL 34017802,
at *25 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 29, 2000). Rule 59 does not give dissatisfied parties the
chance to “relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of
Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005).
Petitioner has not produced any newly discovered evidence that justifies
equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.

Nor has he demonstrated an

intervening change in controlling law. Moreover, none of his arguments shows the
need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Accordingly, because
Petitioner has presented no grounds that entitle him to relief under Rule 59(e), it is
ORDERED that his motion to alter or amend the judgment (Docs. # 38–39) is
DENIED.
DONE this 8th day of April, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3