Hillie v. State of Georgia

Filing 8

OPINION and ORDER denying 7 Petitioner's construed motion to reconsider and that a certificate of appealability (COA) on the denial of post-judgment relief is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 7/28/2014. (bdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
GREGORY MARQUE HILLIE,
Petitioner,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.

STATE OF GEORGIA,
Respondent.

PRISONER HABEAS CORPUS
28 U.S.C. § 2254

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:13-CV-1259-RWS-JFK

ORDER
The matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s post-judgment amended petition
[6] and “Motion of Comparison” [7], construed as a motion to reconsider the Court’s
Order that dismissed for lack of exhaustion and without prejudice Petitioner’s
challenge to the constitutionality of his March 18, 2013, Fayette County conviction.
A party may move for alteration or amendment of a judgment if the motion is
filed within twenty-eight days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “The
only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest
errors of law or fact. . . . A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters,
raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (brackets, citations,
and internal quotation marks omitted).

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

When the Court dismissed this action, it observed that there was no indication
that Petitioner had filed a direct appeal or sought state habeas corpus relief. (See Final
Report and Recommendation [2] at 2.) In his amendment, Petitioner informs the Court
that he filed a motion to vacate in the trial court and that the trial court denied that
motion. (Am. Pet. [6] at 2-3.) Petitioner, however, does not indicate that he has
exhausted his state remedies either via direct appeal or by seeking state habeas corpus
relief. See Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1156 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[I]n order to exhaust
state remedies, a petitioner must fairly present every issue raised in his federal petition
to the state’s highest court, either on direct appeal or on collateral review.”). Finding
nothing that persuades this Court to retreat from its previous decision, the construed
motion to reconsider shall be denied. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s construed motion to reconsider [7] is
DENIED and that a certificate of appealability (COA) on the denial of post-judgment
relief is DENIED. See Perez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 711 F.3d 1263, 1264 (11th
Cir. 2013) (requiring grant or denial of COA for the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 28th day of July, 2014.
_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)