Gearhart v. USA

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Denying 11 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Monte S Gearhart. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/4/13. (bkl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MONTE S. GEARHART,
Petitioner,
vs.

Case No. 10-cv-483-JPG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.
Under Rule 59(e), a court has the opportunity to consider newly discovered material
evidence or intervening changes in the controlling law or to correct its own manifest errors of
law or fact to avoid unnecessary appellate procedures. Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876
(7th Cir. 1996); see Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006). It “does
not provide a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures, and it certainly does not
allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could and should have been
presented to the district court prior to the judgment.” Moro, 91 F.3d at 876. Rule 59(e) relief is
only available if the movant clearly establishes one of the foregoing grounds for relief.
Harrington, 433 F.3d at 546 (citing Romo v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 250 F.3d 1119, 1122 n. 3
(7th Cir. 2001)).
Petitioner’s motion does not suggest newly discovered material evidence, an intervening
change in the law, or manifest error of law or fact. Rather, Petitioner adds to his arguments

originally made in his § 2255 motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion
because he has failed to clearly establish one of the Rule 59(e) grounds for relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 4, 2013
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2