Taylor v. USA
Filing
18
ORDER denying 17 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 05/25/2017. (maa)
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
MATTHEW J. TAYLOR,
^QH HAY 25 A l|: 18
uamjo
*
CLERK-L
*
Qn
5
Petitioner,
"k
V.
*
CV 316-031
*
(Related CR 313-008)
if
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner's motion to alter or amend
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
(Doc. No. 17.)
After careful consideration, the Court DENIES
Petitioner's motion.
I. BACKGROUND
On
August
7,
District of Georgia
possession
with
2013,
the
charged
intent
to
grand
jury
distribute
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
the
Southern
with
Petitioner
in
one
count of
methamphetamine,
in
(See United States v.
Taylor, Case No. 3:13-CR-008 (S.D. Ga. 2014) (the "Criminal
Action"),
Doc.
No.
1.)
On
December
18,
2013,
Petitioner,
represented by court-appointed attorney Joseph Marchant, pled
guilty to the one charge. (Id.. Doc. Nos. 22-24.)
On July 1,
2014, Petitioner was sentenced to 156 months imprisonment, to
be served consecutively to the state terms of imprisonment
imposed by the Superior Court of Wilkinson County, Georgia,
and judgment thereon was entered on July 3, 2014.
Nos. 31, 32.)
(Id., Doc.
Petitioner did not file a direct appeal of this
judgment.
On May 16, 2016, the Court received Petitioner's petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his
federal
sentence.
(Doc.
No.
1.)
In
his
Section
2255
petition. Petitioner raised four grounds for relief, namely
three grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and one
ground of sentencing error.
(Id.)
On May 19, 2016, the
United States Magistrate Judge conducted an initial review of
Petitioner's Section 2255 petition and entered a report and
recommendation (^^R&R") wherein he recommended, inter alia, the
dismissal of Petitioner's Section 2255 petition as untimely.
(Doc. No. 3.)
The deadline to file objections to the R&R
passed without response from Petitioner. Accordingly, on June
15, 2016, after a careful de novo review of the file, the
Court adopted the R&R, dismissed Petitioner's Section 2255
petition as untimely, and denied Petitioner a certificate of
appealability (the ^^Dismissal Order").^
(Doc. No. 6.)
^ On July 13, 2016, the Court received Petitioner's
notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals as
to the Order dismissing his Section 2255 Motion. (Doc. No.
On April 10, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion for relief
from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b) seeking to have the Court set aside the Dismissal Order
(^^Motion for Relief").
{Doc. No. 15.)
On April 20, 2017,
the Court denied the Motion for Relief on the grounds that
Petitioner had failed to establish that his failure to timely
object to the R&R was excusable (''Order Denying Relief")
(Doc. No. 16.)
On May 16, 2017, Petitioner filed his present
motion to alter or amend the Order Denying Relief pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
(Doc. No. 17.)
II. DISCUSSION
A party may seek to alter or amend a judgment in a civil
case within twenty-eight days after the entry of the judgment.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Because reconsideration of a judgment
after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be
10.)
On December 19, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit denied
Petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability based
on his failure to make the requisite showing. (See Tavlor v.
United States. Case No. 16-14946-G (11th Cir. Dec. 19, 2016).)
^
The Court also concluded that, even were the Court to
grant Petitioner's Motion for Relief and consider Petitioner's
substantive claims as timely objections to the R&R, Petitioner
still would not be entitled to relief because Petitioner had
failed to demonstrate any reasonable basis for equitable
tolling or a finding that a fundamental miscarriage of justice
had occurred that would entitle him to untimely petition for
habeas corpus relief under Section 2255.
8.)
(Doc. No. 16, at 6-
used sparingly, a movant must set forth facts or law of a
strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its
prior decision.
Bostic v. Astrue, No. l:12-CV-082, 2012 WL
3113942, at *1 (S.D. Ga. July 31, 2012).
A Rule 59(e) motion
may not be used ^^to relitigate old matters, raise argument or
present evidence that could have been raised prior to the
entry of judgment," as "the only grounds for granting a Rule
59(e) motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors
of law or fact."
Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th
Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted). "Rule 59(e) is not a vehicle
for rehashing arguments already rejected by the court or for
refuting the
court's
prior
decision."
Bostic, 2012 WL
3113942, at *1 (quoting Wendy's Int'l v. Nu-Caoe Const., Inc.,
169 F.R.D. 680, 686 (M.D. Ga. 1996)).
Here,
Petitioner
has
failed
to
demonstrate
newly
discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact that
would justify a finding that the Court should amend or alter
its Order Denying Relief.
Petitioner attaches to his present
motion two exhibits, namely: (1) a letter sent to him from his
former counsel dated November 5, 2013; and (2) an affidavit
from
his
mother,
Mrs.
Carolyn
Taylor,
regarding
alleged
coercive influence exercised by the arresting officer over
Petitioner and his family.
neither
of
these
(See Doc. No. 17, at 4-7.)
exhibits
constitute
Yet
"newly-discovered
evidence" that could not have been raised prior to the entry
of the Order Denying Relief.
Petitioner has also failed to
articulate any manifest errors of law or fact in the Court's
Order
Denying
Relief
that
would
otherwise necessitate its reversal.
affect
that
ruling
or
Rather, Petitioner has
merely restated the points made in his original Motion for
Relief and argued that the Court has erred by ^^not allowing
for the maturation of the arguments supporting [Petitioner's]
actual innocence claim."
(Doc. No. 17, at 2.)
Moreover, as
noted by the Court in its Order Denying Relief, even were the
Court to grant Petitioner's present motion as well as his
original
Motion
for
Relief
and
consider
Petitioner's
substantive claims of coercion and threats by the arresting
officer as timely objections to the R&R, Petitioner still
would not be entitled to relief.
(See Doc. No. 16, at 6-8.)
Accordingly, his present motion must be denied, his Motion for
Relief remains properly denied, and his underlying Section
2255 petition remains untimely.^
^ Were the Court to liberally construe Petitioner's
present motion as one seeking relief under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b), Petitioner still would not be entitled
to any relief, as he has failed to demonstrate - let alone
provide any evidence in support of - any reason justifying
relief thereunder.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1-6); see also
Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984)
(^'[R]elief under [umbrella ^^any other reason that justifies
relief" clause] is an extraordinary remedy which may be
invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.").
III. CONCLUSION
Upon the foregoing and due consideration. Petitioner's
motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e) (doc. no. 17) is DENIED.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this
^
day of
May, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?