Glasgow v. Warden, FCC Coleman - USP I

Filing 10

ORDER denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Barber on 9/15/2022. (JND)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
ALVIN GLASGOW,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No: 5:22-cv-65-TPB-PRL

WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN –
LOW,
Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 59(e) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERTION
On March 3, 2022, the Court dismissed Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Petition and this case without prejudice (Doc. 5). Judgment was entered on
March 4, 2022 (Doc. 6). Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration of Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Doc. 7). Petitioner requests that the Court
reconsider its finding that § 2241 is not the proper vehicle to raise his claim
that he is “actually innocent” of the crime for which he was convicted (id.).
Rule 59(e) affords the Court discretion to reconsider an order which it
has entered. See Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106, 1137 (11th Cir. 2000);
O’Neal v. Kennamer, 958 F.2d 1044, 1047 (11th Cir. 1992). “The only grounds
for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly[] discovered evidence or manifest

errors of law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)
(quotations and citations omitted). This Court has interpreted those
parameters to include “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or
manifest injustice.” Lamar Advertising of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland,
Fla., 189 F.R.D. 480, 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999). The purpose of Rule 59 is not to
ask the Court to reexamine an unfavorable ruling without any manifest error
of law or fact. Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int’l., Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th
Cir. 2010). As such, Rule 59(e) cannot be used “to relitigate old matters, raise
argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry
of judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757,
763 (11th Cir. 2005); see also O’Neal, 958 F.2d at 1047.
Petitioner has not asserted viable grounds to warrant the Court’s
reconsideration of its March 3, 2022, Order dismissing the Petition and this
case without prejudice. He simply reiterates the same arguments he raised in
his Petition. The Court finds that Petitioner’s assertions do not support
reconsideration under Rule 59(e). Petitioner simply disagrees with the
Court’s ruling and wants a favorable ruling, but not for any basis which
might fall under Rule 59(e).

2

Therefore, it is now
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Dismissal

Without Prejudice Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Doc. 7)
is DENIED.
2.

Petitioner’s Request to Take Judicial Notice Pursuant to Federal

Rule of Evidence 201(c)(2) (Doc. 8) is STRICKEN. This case remains closed.

3

3.

If Petitioner appeals the Court’s denial of his Rule 59(e) Motion,

the Court denies a certificate of appealability.1 Because this Court has
determined that a certificate of appealability is not warranted, the Clerk of
Court shall terminate from the pending motions report any motion to
proceed on appeal as a pauper that may be filed in this case. Such
termination shall serve as a denial of the motion.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 15th day of
September, 2022.

Jax-7
C:

Alvin Glasgow, #85699-083

This Court should issue a certificate of appealability only if the Petitioner
makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). To make this substantial showing, Petitioner “must demonstrate that
reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong,” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004) (quoting
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), or that “the issues presented were
‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)).
Here, after consideration of the record as a whole, the Court will deny a certificate
of appealability.
1

4