Wooten v. United States of America

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING 41 Motion to Alter Judgment; and DENYING AS MOOT 27 Motion to Stay. Case Previously Closed. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 1/31/2023. See attached document for full details. (caw)

Case 1:16-cv-22595-RNS Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2023 Page 1 of 2

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Charles Wooten, Plaintiff,
v.
United States of America,
Defendant.

)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 16-22595-Civ-Scola
)
)

Order Denying Motions for Reconsideration
Plaintiff Charles Wooten initiated this action, petitioning the Court for a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, in 2016. (ECF No. 1.) His case
has proceeded in fits and starts since then, through multiple rounds of briefings,
stays pending Eleventh Circuit and United States Supreme Court decisions, and
supplemental filings. In the Court’s most recent activity, it adopted the
magistrate judge’s report (Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 37), over Wooten’s vigorous
objections, recommending that his petition be denied (Order, ECF No. 40).
Wooten asks the Court to reconsider that order, complaining that the Court
erred in finding him properly convicted of carrying a firearm in relation to a
crime of violence and drug-trafficking crime. (Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 41.) The
Government has not responded and the time to do so has long since passed.
After reviewing the record, the briefing, and the relevant legal authorities, the
Court finds no merit in Wooten’s request for relief. The Court, therefore, denies
his motion (ECF No. 41).
“[I]n the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources,
reconsideration of an order is an extraordinary remedy that is employed
sparingly.” Gipson v. Mattox, 511 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1185 (S.D. Ala. 2007). A
motion to reconsider is “appropriate where, for example, the Court has patently
misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues
presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but
of apprehension.” Z.K. Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F. Supp. 1561, 1563
(S.D. Fla. 1992) (Hoeveler, J.) (citation omitted). “Simply put, a party may move
for reconsideration only when one of the following has occurred: an intervening
change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Longcrier v. HL-A Co., 595 F. Supp. 2d
1218, 1247 (S.D. Ala. 2008) (quoting Vidinliev v. Carey Int’l, Inc., No. CIV.A.
107CV762-TWT, 2008 WL 5459335, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 15, 2008)). However,
“[s]uch problems rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally
rare.” Z.K. Marine, 808 F. Supp. at 1563. Certainly, if any of these situations

Case 1:16-cv-22595-RNS Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2023 Page 2 of 2

arise, a court has broad discretion to reconsider a previously issued order.
Absent any of these conditions, however, a motion to reconsider is not ordinarily
warranted.
In asking the Court to alter or amend its judgment, Wooten submits the
Court must correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the denial of his
petition was based and to prevent manifest injustice. (Pl.’s Mot. at 3.)
Throughout his motion for reconsideration, however, Wooten largely repeats
arguments he has previously raised, often simply copying and pasting vast
swaths of argument he has already presented for the Court’s consideration. In
short, Wooten improperly asks the Court to simply “rethink what the Court
already thought through.” Z.K. Marine, 808 F. Supp. at 1563.
On the other hand, Wooten also points to a handful of decisions that came
out after the Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations.
He fails, however, to explain why any of those opinions, published by both the
Eleventh Circuit and the United States Supreme Court, would change the
analysis or the outcome in this case. The Court adopted the magistrate judge’s
conclusion that “Wooten’s drug trafficking and conspiracy offenses are
inextricably intertwined.” (Rep. & Rec. at 17.) As set forth in the report, “the jury
could not have found Mr. Wooten guilty of a robbery conspiracy if they had not
also found that he was attempting to engage in drug trafficking.” (Id.)
Accordingly, as adopted by the Court, Wooten has failed to meet his burden of
showing that his 924(c) conviction was predicated on an offense—Hobbs Act
conspiracy—that does not constitute a crime of violence. None of the cases
Wooten now relies on change that analysis.
Accordingly, the Court denies Wooten’s motion to alter or amend the
judgment (ECF No. 41). This case is to remain closed and the Court denies all
other pending motions, including Wooten’s motion to stay (ECF No 27) as moot.
Done and ordered, in Miami, Florida, on January 31, 2023.
________________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge