Evans v. Akinbayo et al

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 1/11/2022. (nms)

Case 1:18-cv-01080-RGA Document 64 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 799

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MICHAEL EV ANS,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 18-1080-RGA

V.

KOLAWOLE AKINBA YO, Warden, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM

On June 28, 2021 , the Court denied Petitioner Michael Evans' habeas petition after
determining that six claims were time-barred and one claim was not cognizable on federal habeas
review. (D.I. 56; D.I. 57) The Court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability with
respect to that decision. (D.I. 56 at 13-14; D.I. 57) On July 6, 2021 , Petitioner filed two notices
of appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. (D.I. 58; D.I. 59) On July 9, 2021 , Petitioner
filed in this Court a motion asking the Court to reconsider its refusal to issue a certificate of
appealability ("Motion for Reconsideration"). (D.I. 61 at 1-2) On August 31 , 2021 , the Third
Circuit denied the motion for a certificate of appealability that Petitioner filed in conjunction
with his notices of appeal. (D.I. 62)
I.

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). Motions for reconsideration filed
within Rule 59(e)' s twenty-eight day filing period are construed as timely filed Rule 59(e)
motions to alter or amend judgment, rather than as Rule 60(b) motions for reconsideration. See

Case 1:18-cv-01080-RGA Document 64 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 800

Banister v. Davis, 140 S.Ct. 1698, 1708 (2020) (explaining that Rule 59(e) motions seeking
reconsideration of the underlying decision are permitted in habeas proceedings and are not
considered to be second or successive habeas petitions, unlike subsequent Rule 60(b) motions
raising new issues); Blystone v. Horn , 664 F.3d 397, 414 (3d Cir. 2011) (explaining that a timely
Rule 59(e) motion is not subjected to the "statutory limitations imposed upon second or
successive collateral attacks on criminal judgments"). Rule 59( e) is "a device [] used to allege
legal error," 1 and may only be used to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence. See Howard Hess Dental Labs, Inc. v. Dentsply Int '! Inc. , 602 F.3d 237,
251 (3d Cir. 2010). The scope of a Rule 59(e) motion is extremely limited,2 and may only be
used to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. See
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. See Max 's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.
1999).

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court construes the instant Motion for Reconsideration as a motion filed pursuant to

Rule 59(e), because it was filed within twenty-eight days after the entry of the Court' s

1

United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 2003).
See Error! Main Document Only.Blystone, 664 F.3d at 415; see also Brambles USA Inc. v.
Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990).

2

2

Case 1:18-cv-01080-RGA Document 64 Filed 01/11/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 801

judgment. 3 In the Motion, Petitioner conclusorily asserts that the Court should have issued a
certificate of appealability because (1) equitable tolling rendered six of his claims timely and (2)
the arguments in his Petition made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(D.I. 61 at 3) These contentions, however, do not present any intervening change in law, the
availability of previously unavailable evidence, or a "clear error of law" of the sort that would
compel reconsideration of the Court' s denial of his§ 2254 Petition or its refusal to issue a
certificate of appealability. The fact the Third Circuit considered and rejected the same
assertions when it denied the motion for a certificate of appealability Petitioner filed in
conjunction with his notices of appeal provides additional support for the Court's conclusion.
(D.I. 62) Accordingly, the Court will deny the instant Motion for failing to satisfy the
requirements of Rule 59(e).
In addition, an individual named Brandon Evans filed a letter asking to be added as a
plaintiff in the instant proceeding. (D.I. 63) Given the decision to deny the instant Rule 59(e)
Motion, the Court will summarily dismiss as moot Brandon Evans ' un-related request to be
added as a plaintiff.

III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court will deny Petitioner' s Rule 59(e) Motion for

Reconsideration (D.I. 61) and the unrelated request to add Brandon Evans as a plaintiff (D.I. 63).

3

The Court denied the Petition on June 28, 2021. (D.I 56; D.I. 57) Petitioner filed the instant
Motion for Reconsideration (D.I. 61) on July 9, 2021 , which was eleven days after the dismissal
of his Petition.
3

Case 1:18-cv-01080-RGA Document 64 Filed 01/11/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 802

A separate Order will be entered.

DATED: January 11 , 2022

4