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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?