Wood v. Phelps et al
Filing
71
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 3/4/15. (mas, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
)
)
)
)
) Civ. A. No. 11-1115-GMS
)
)
)
)
BRUCE WOOD,
Petitioner,
V.
DAVID PIERCE, Warden, et. al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM
I.
INTRODUCTION
In January 2015, the court denied petitioner Bruce Wood's habeas petition as time-barred
and, alternatively, denied the claims contained therein as procedurally barred and/or for failing to
satisfy§ 2254(d). Presently pending before the court is Wood's motion for reargument. (D.I.
62)
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion for reargument/reconsideration may be filed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Although motions for reargument/
reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) serve similar functions, each has a particular
purpose. United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 2003). For instance,"Rule 60(b)
allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a
limited set of circumstances including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence."
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). A motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court guided by accepted legal principles applied in
light of all relevant circumstances, Pierce Assoc. Inc. v. Nemours Found., 865 F.2d 530, 548 (3d
Cir. 1988), but may be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. Moolenaar v. Gov 't of
Virgin Islands, 822 F.2d 1342, 1346 (3d Cir. 1987).
In contrast, Rule 59(e) is "a device[] used to allege legal error," Fiorelli, 337 F.3d at
288, and may only be used to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence. Howard Hess Dental Labs, Inc. v. Dentsply Int'! Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251
(3d Cir. 2010). The moving party must show one of the following in order to prevail on a Rule
59(e) motion: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence that was not available when the court issued its order; or (3) the need to correct a clear
error oflaw or fact or to prevent a manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). A motion for reargument/reconsideration is not appropriate to reargue
issues that the court has already considered and decided. Brambles USA Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F.
Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990).
III.
DISCUSSION
Wood has not identified the authority by which he is seeking reargument. However,
because he filed the instant motion within twenty-eight days after the entry of the court's
judgment, 1 the court will treat the motion as filed pursuant to Rule 59(e). See, e.g., Holsworth v.
1
Rule 59(e) states that a "motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than
28 days after the entry of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The court denied Wood's
petition on January 22, 2015. (DJ 59; D.I. 60) Wood filed a "notice of motion for reargument"
on January 29, 2015, indicating his intent to file a motion for reargument. (D.I. 61) This notice
was erroneously docketed as the actual motion for reargument. Wood's actual motion for
reargument was docketed on February 9, 2015, but the certificate of service is dated January 31,
2015. (D.1. 62) All of these dates fall well within the twenty-eight day period provided for in
Rule 59(e). Nevertheless, pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, the court will adopt the date on
the certificate of service, January 31, 2015, as the date of filing. The court also notes that it will
direct the clerk of the court to correct the docket sheet to reflect that the actual motion for
reargument is Docket Item Number 62, and not Docket Item Number 61.
2
Berg, 322 F. App'x 143, 146 (3d Cir. 2009); Ranklin v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 936, 942 (3d Cir.
1985) ("Regardless of how it is styled, a motion filed within ten days of entry of judgment
questioning the correctness of judgment may be treated as a motion to amend or alter the
judgment under Rule 59(e).").
Nevertheless, Wood's motion fails to warrant relief. Wood contends that the court
erroneously denied his petition as time-barred for three reasons: (1) the court should have
equitably tolled the limitations period on the basis that he was misled into believing that the
limitations period was tolled when Judge Schiller dismissed his first habeas petition without
prejudice for failing to exhaust state remedies; (2) the court should have acknowledged that his
second Rule 61 motion somehow tolled the limitations period pursuant to Martinez v. Ryan, 132
S.Ct. 1309 (2012); and (3) the court should have equitably tolled the limitations period because
of Wood's limited education, mental illness, and incompetence. These arguments, however, do
not warrant reconsideration of the court's decision, because they merely assert his disagreement
with the court's prior conclusion and reassert arguments already considered and rejected by the
court. Notably, none of these arguments assert an intervening change in law, the availability of
previously unavailable evidence, or a "clear error of law" of the sort that would compel
reargument.
To the extent Wood challenges the court's alternative dismissal of the claims as
procedurally barred and/or for failing to satisfy§ 2254(d), the court concludes that reargument is
not warranted. Once again, Wood essentially reasserts arguments already considered and
rejected, and these arguments fail to show that reargument is necessary in order to correct a clear
3
error of law or fact, or to prevent a manifest injustice. 2 Thus, the court will not reconsider its
prior denial of the claims as procedurally barred and/or for failing to satisfy§ 2254(d).
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court will deny Wood's Rule 59(e) motion for reargument.
In addition, the court will not issue a certificate of appealability, because Wood has failed to
make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see
United States v. Eyer, 113 F.3d 470 (3d Cir. 1997); 3d Cir. LAR 22.2 (2011). A separate order
will be entered.
H4 't "JfJ/S
DATE
2
For instance, Wood asserts that the court was permitted to review the procedurally barred
claims pursuant to Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012). (D.I. 62 at 8) The court considered
and rejected this argument in its Memorandum Opinion denying Wood's§ 2254 petition, and the
Martinez argument in Wood's instant Rule 59(e) motion adds nothing new. (D.I. 59 at 17-18)
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?