ESPOSITO (DEATH PENALTY) v. HUMPHREY

Filing 99

ORDER denying 91 Motion for Reconsideration filed by JOHN ANTHONY ESPOSITO. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 11/10/2022 (tam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

JOHN ANTHONY ESPOSITO,
Petitioner,
vs.
NO: 5:12-CV-163 (CAR)
CARL HUMPHREY, Warden1
Respondent. :

ORDER
Petitioner moves the Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter
and amend the Court's March 30, 2022 Order denying Petitioner's Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b) motion to reopen and stay his habeas action. ECF No. 91. Respondent
has responded to Petitioner's motion and Petitioner has replied. ECF Nos. 95; 98. For
reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED.
I.

STANDARD

'"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
1

Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999)). Petitioner cannot
use a '"Rule 59(e) motion ... to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence

1

11
'

that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.

Id. (quoting Michael Linet,

Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)).
II.

ANALYSIS

On December 29, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b) to reopen and hold in abeyance his 28 U.S.C § 2254 action, which had
been closed for more than seven years. ECF No. 84. He requested the Court to address
whether he "was denied due process, a fair trial, and a reliable sentence by juror
misconduct occasioned when a juror met with her pastor seeking guidance on how to
reconcile her Christian faith with her obligations as a juror in a capital case." Id. at 1.
Almost twenty-three years after his conviction, Petitioner had obtained evidence in the
form of a second affidavit from Janice Harris, formerly Janice Seagraves, one of the
jurors in his criminal trial. ECF No. 84-2. In her second affidavit, Harris stated that
"after being questioned as a potential juror," she spoke with her church pastor about
serving on a capital case and reviewed Bible passages he recommended.

Id. at 3.

Petitioner argued that "given the inherently prejudicial nature of the misconduct at
issue here, [he] will be entitled to an order vacating his conviction and death sentence."

Id.
In its March 30, 2022 Order, the Court found Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion was,
in fact, a second or successive habeas petition and, therefore, the District Court did not
2

have jurisdiction. ECF No. 90; 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Petitioner makes two arguments
in his Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgement: (1) the Court's finding was clearly
erroneous because his juror-misconduct claim was never adjudicated on the merits, and
(2) the Court should reverse its March 30, 2022 Order to prevent manifest injustice. ECF
No. 91-1 at 3-8; 98 at 2-9.
The Court has already addressed Petitioner's argument that his juror-misconduct
claim was not adjudicated on the merits. ECF No. 90. Petitioner raised a generically
worded juror misconduct claim in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, which he failed to
support with evidence or argument. ECF Nos. 1 at 26; 84 at 4; 90 at 7-10. The Court
found Petitioner abandoned this claim. ECF No. 67 at 85-86. Petitioner does not take
issue with this finding. In other words, he does not argue the Court incorrectly found
he abandoned his generally worded juror misconduct claim. Instead, he argues that he
now has evidence, which he did not have before, to support a specific juror misconduct
claim and the Court should, therefore, reopen his habeas action, review the newly
discovered evidence, and vacate his conviction and death sentence. ECF Nos. 84-1; 842; 90. Thus, as the Court previously found, Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion "assert[ed], or
reassert[ed], claims of error in the movant's state conviction," and it, therefore, must be
"treated as a second or successive federal habeas corpus petition"--which is subject to
the restrictions on such petitions in § 2244(b). Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 538
(2005).
3

Contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the Court did not improperly find that habeas
counsel failed to act diligently or blame Petitioner for juror Harris' failure to "expose
her misconduct." ECF No. 91-1 at 6. In fact, the Court stated that "[i]t could be, as
Petitioner argues, that he could not reasonably discover any evidence of Harris' conduct
until July 2021. That, however, is an argument Petitioner needs to make to the Eleventh
Circuit when he seeks authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition." ECF
No. 90 at 8; 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
Next, Petitioner argues that the Court should reverse its March 30, 2022 Order
because failure to consider his juror-misconduct claim will result in manifest injustice.
ECF Nos. 91-1 at 9-11; 98 at 7-9. Specifically, he states that "allowing for [Petitioner] to
be executed without a federal court's review of the juror-misconduct claim would create
a manifest injustice, which is grounds for reconsideration of a judgment under Rule
59(e)." ECF No. 91-1 at 9. The Court is not foreclosing federal review of Petitioner's
juror-misconduct claim. It is simply holding that he must follow the procedure in 28
U.S.C. § 2244 and move in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for an order that
would allow this Court to consider his juror-misconduct claim.
For these reasons, Petitioner's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to
alter and amend the Court's March 30, 2022 Order denying Petitioner's Federal Rule
Civil Procedure 60(b) motion is DENIED. ECF No. 91.

4

SO ORDERED, this

1°

day of November, 2022.

C.A~~EY7o3~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5