Jenkins v. Krueger

Filing 23

ORDER denying 22 , Petitioner's Motion to Amend/Correct. See full written Order. Entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 4/19/2018. (RT, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 19 April, 2018 08:31:51 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
TIRAN JENKINS,
Petitioner,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01316-JES
v.
STEVE KALLIS,
Respondent.

ORDER
Before the Court is the Petitioner, Tiran Jenkins’, pro se Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e) “to Correct a Manifest Error of Law and Fact[.]” (D. 22). Although
captioned as a Motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), a motion to alter or amend judgment, the Court
construes his Motion as a Motion to Reconsider the Court’s prior Order denying his Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (D. 20). 1 The Government did not respond
to the Petitioner’s Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED.
The background of Petitioner’s § 2241 claim is discussed in more detail in the Court’s
prior Order. Id. Relevant to the Motion presently before the Court, the Petitioner did not argue
that his sentence, which was based on multiple counts, was unlawful because of the sentence he
received for Count I. (D. 1). The Court denied his Petition, in part, because his conviction for
Count I was valid. (D. 20). The Petitioner now brings the present Motion, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59, arguing that the Court’s reliance on this fact was erroneous. (D. 22).
Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or
fact, or to present newly discovered evidence. Caisse Nationale de Credit v. CBI Industries, 90

1

Citations to the Docket in this case are abbreviated as “D. __.”

1

F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996). It is not appropriate to argue matters that could have been
raised in prior motions or rehash previously rejected arguments in a motion to reconsider. Id. at
1270.
The Petitioner could have raised the argument he raises now in his § 2241 Petition. He
did not. Therefore, this is not the appropriate forum for his claim. Id. Additionally, the
Petitioner’s argument is premised on his assertion that the Court’s finding that he was deemed a
career offender for Count I, pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”) § 4B1.1,
is a manifest error of fact. (D. 22 at pp. 3-9). This contention is directly contradicted by the
record. As noted in the Court’s prior Order, he was sentenced as a career offender for Count I.
(D. 20 at pg. 1). This finding was based upon information contained in the presentence report
from the Petitioner’s underlying criminal case. (D. 14 at pp. 12-14). The Petitioner points to no
evidence to contradict this information. His assertions to the contrary are insufficient. As a
result, the Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED.
For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner’s Motion (D. 22) is DENIED.
It is so ordered.
Entered on April 19, 2018

_s/ James E. Shadid_
James E. Shadid
Chief United States District Judge

2