Watts v. United States of America

Filing 18

ORDER denying 11 , Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider. See full written order. Entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 11/13/2017. (RT, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 13 November, 2017 03:15:53 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
WILLIAM WATTS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 1:16-CV-01382-JES

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

Order
Now before the Court is the pro se Petitioner, William Watts’, Motion to Reconsider (D.
11). 1 For the reasons stated, infra, the Court DENIES the Petitioner’s Motion.
The Petitioner filed an Objection to the Entry of Appearance in October 2016. (D. 5).
Specifically, he objected to then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Bradley Murphy being replaced by
Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Walters in these proceedings. The Court denied the Petitioner’s
Objection, stating in relevant part: “[w]hile Mr. Watts may wish to choose opposing counsel for
the Government, he has no right to do so, and the Court has no authority to choose for him either.
With no authority to choose, the Court need not comment on Mr. Watts' preference for Mr. Murphy
over Mr. Walters.” See the Court’s November 4, 2016 Text Order. Now, the Petitioner urges the
Court to reconsider its ruling. (D. 11).
“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
F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). Manifest errors are those which involve the
“wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Oto v.

1

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

1

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000). The Petitioner has failed to
highlight any manifest errors of law or fact in his Motion to Reconsider. Nor has he brought any
newly discovered evidence to the Court’s attention. Therefore, the Court DENIES the
Petitioner’s Motion.
For the reasons stated, supra, the Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider (D. 11) is DENIED.
It is so ordered.
Entered on November 13, 2017
s/James E. Shadid
Chief United States District Judge

2