Ceja v. United States of America

Filing 37

ORDER denying 33 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 08/08/2017. (pts)

IN THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF

FOR THE

GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

JAMIE CEJA,

*
•

Petitioner,

*
*

*

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CV

115-018

(Formerly CR 111-359)

*
•

Respondent.

*

ORDER

On February 3, 2015, Petitioner Jamie Ceja filed a motion
to vacate,

§ 2255.
for

set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C.

The United States Magistrate Judge appointed counsel

Petitioner

Magistrate

and

Judge

held

then

an

evidentiary

issued

Recommendation on March 21, 2017,

a

hearing.

65-page

Report

The

and

recommending denial of the

§ 2255 petition.

Ceja objected to the Report and Recommendation;
consideration,

however,

this

Court adopted the

Recommendation in its entirety on July 12,

upon

Report and

2017.

Presently, Ceja has filed a pro se "Motion for Leave to

Alter or Amend Judgment Adopting Without

Elaboration the

Magistrate's Report and Recommendation."

Federal Rule of

Civil

Procedure

59(e)

allows

a

court

to

alter

or

amend

judgment upon motions filed within 2 8 days of the entry of

judgment.

Ceja's motion was timely filed here.

Rule 59(e)

does not set forth the grounds for relief;

instead, district courts in this Circuit have identified three

grounds

that

merit

reconsideration

of

an

order:

(1)

an

intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of
new

evidence;

and

(3)

the

need

prevent manifest injustice.

Diversity v. Hamilton,
2005);

Sussman v.

689, 694

to

correct

See, e.g.,

Ctr.

clear

error

for Biological

385 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1337

Salem,

(M.D. Ga. 1994).

Saxon & Nielsen,

Here,

or

P.A.,

(N.D. Ga.
153

F.R.D.

Ceja does not argue a change

in the law or present new evidence; rather, he essentially
contends that this Court must reconsider its ruling to prevent

manifest injustice.

Rule 59(e)

may not be used "to relitigate old matters,

raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised
prior to the entry of judgment."
Village

2005).

of

Wellington,

Fla. , 408

*[R]econsideration

of

Michael Linet,
F.3d

a

757,

previous

763

v.

(11th Cir.

order

extraordinary remedy, to be employed sparingly.'"

Inc.

is

xan

Williams v.

Cruise Ships Catering & Serv. Internat'l. N.V., 320 F. Supp.

2d 1347, 1358 (S.D. Fla. 2004)

this case,

(quoted source omitted).

Ceja only attempts to reargue

position on the Miranda rights issue.

or

rehash

In

his

This is not a proper

use of Rule 59(e).
"Court

to

rethink

through-rightly
Archigetis,

808

Consequently,
(doc.

144)

or

A party cannot file a motion asking the
what

the

Court

wrongly."

F.

Supp.

.

Z.K.

1561,

.

. already

Marine,

1563

(S.D.

Inc.
Fla.

v.

M/V

1992).

Ceja's motion to alter or amend the judgment

is DENIED.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this
August,

thought

A

day of

2017.

HONORABLE

J.

RANDAL

HALL

UNITEl/ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SRN DISTRICT

OF

GEORGIA