Fletcher v. Hulick et al

Filing 71

ORDER denying 69 Motion of objection; denying 70 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 11/14/2011. (ktc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ROBERT D. FLETCHER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
vs.
DAVE REDNOUR,
Respondent.

CIVIL NO. 08-266-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
Petitioner Robert D. Fletcher filed a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and counsel
was appointed to represent him. On September 30, 2011, this Court denied Fletcher’s Second
Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and entered judgment against him. Fletcher has filed,
pro se, a “motion of objection” and, through counsel, a timely motion to alter or amend judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
To prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion, the movant must present either newly discovered
evidence or establish a manifest error of law or fact. Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d
601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000). A “manifest error” is “the wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure
to recognize controlling precedent.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). Rule 59(e) “does not provide
a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures,” and it “does not allow a party to introduce
new evidence or advance arguments that could and should have been presented to the court prior to
the judgment.” Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996).
Fletcher argues that the Court committed manifest errors of law and fact by denying his
Page 1 of 2

claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his claim of innocence and, instead,
advancing a self-defense theory at trial. Fletcher fails to show how this Court wholly disregarded,
misapplied, or failed to recognize controlling precedent. It is clear that Fletcher simply disagrees
with this Court’s analysis, and that is an insufficient basis for Rule 59(e) relief.
Next, Fletcher argues that this Court failed to allow him sufficient time to file a reply to
Respondent’s argument that certain claims were procedurally defaulted. A simple review of the
docket sheet reflects the patience shown, through the numerous extensions of time that were granted,
to allow Fletcher to amend and brief his claims. This argument is absurd.
Finally, Fletcher argues that the Court erred in finding that he failed to establish cause and
prejudice to avoid procedural default. Fletcher asserts nothing in this motion that could not have
been argued in his second amended petition. This Court will not pick apart the factual allegations
asserted in the second amended petition to determine what could have been cause where those events
were not specifically asserted as cause. This was not a pro se pleading that required liberal
construction. To the extent Fletcher simply reargues that he established cause, this Court is
convinced that its analysis was correct.
For these reasons, Fletcher’s motions (Docs. 69, 70) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 14, 2011
s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2