Davis v. Schwartz et al

Filing 24

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 11/9/2011: For the reasons stated below, Petitioners petition for a rehearing, which the court will liberally construe as a motion to alter or amend judgment 23 is denied. Petitioners petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum 21 is denied as moot. Mailed notice. [For further details see written opinion.](mr, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan

CASE NUMBER

11 C 2998

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

11/9/2011

Joseph Davis (K-60509) vs. Gregory Schwartz

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s petition for a rehearing, which the court will liberally construe as a
motion to alter or amend judgment [23] is denied. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus ad
testificandum [21] is denied as moot.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
This matter is before the court on Petitioner Joseph Davis’ (Davis) pro se petition for a rehearing,
which the court will liberally construe as a motion to alter or amend judgment. This matter is also before the
court on Davis’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Rule 59(e)) permits parties to file, within twenty-eight days of
the entry of a judgment, a motion to alter or amend the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Rule 59(e) motions
do not give a party the opportunity to rehash old arguments or to present new arguments or evidence “that
could and should have been presented to the district court prior to the judgment.” Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91
F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996)(citing LB Credit Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir.
1995)). Rather, for a Rule 59(e) motion, the movant “must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or
fact or must present newly discovered evidence” in order to be successful. LB Credit Corp., 49 F.3d at 1267
(quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)). The decision of
whether to grant or deny a motion brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) “is entrusted to the sound judgment of the
district court. . . .” In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996).
On October 6, 2011, the court dismissed Davis’ petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to
11C2998 Joseph Davis (K-60509) vs. Gregory Schwartz

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Section 2254 Petition). In dismissing the Section 2254 Petition, the court held that the
Section 2254 Petition was untimely and that Davis had not provided any basis to show that the statute of
limitations period should have been equitably tolled. (Dkt. 18, 4-5). In addition, the court noted that even if
the Section 2254 Petition had been timely, it lacked any merit. (Dkt. 18, 7-8).
In the instant motion, Davis argues that he was prevented from timely filing the Section 2254 Petition
due to some confusion regarding the attorney representing him on direct appeal. Davis also makes numerous
arguments regarding the sufficiency, consistency, and reliability of the testimony given at trial. For example,
Davis contends that the police reports were inconsistent with the victim’s testimony, and that certain
witnesses were under the influence of drugs and alcohol or committed perjury. In addition, Davis argues that
evidence presented in a recent trial against a former Chicago Police Commander constitutes newly
discovered evidence that warrants the granting of the instant motion. According to Davis, such evidence
establishes that certain police detectives falsified police reports in his case, tortured him, and put a case on
him. Even when liberally construing Davis’ motion for reconsideration, Davis has not presented any new
arguments or evidence that could not have been presented earlier, nor has Davis shown that the court erred in
dismissing his Section 2254 Petition. Therefore, the court denies the instant motion. Davis’ Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum is denied as moot.

11C2998 Joseph Davis (K-60509) vs. Gregory Schwartz

Page 2 of 2