Gatch v. Walton

Filing 32

ORDER denying 31 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 6/23/2016. (dsw)

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

RUSSEL NEIL GATCH,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
vs.
EDDIE MEJIA,
Respondent.

Civil No. 14-cv-1076-DRH-CJP

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Presently before the Court is petitioner Russel Neil Gatch’s motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 31) of the Court’s order dismissing his case (Doc. 29). The
motion was filed pursuant to Rule 59(e). For the reasons discussed herein, the
motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(Doc. 1) challenging the enhancement of his sentence as a Repeat and Dangerous
Sex Offender Against Minors pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(a). The petition relied
on Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013). On November 10, 2014,
1

on preliminary review, the Court entered an order dismissing the petition with
prejudice (Doc. 3). Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration (Doc.
8) (“November 2014 Motion to Reconsider”). In his November 2014 Motion to
Reconsider, petitioner argued (1) The Court incorrectly concluded that Descamps
only applies to ACCA cases; (2) the Court’s conclusions were contradictory
(relying on Descamps); (3) Descamps was retroactive; and (4) the Court
improperly concluded petitioner failed to show the savings clause was applicable
(relying on Descamps). On May 26, 2015, the Court granted the motion for
reconsideration and issued an order reopening the case (Doc. 8).
On March 25, 2016, after the matter was fully briefed, the Court entered an
order dismissing the case with prejudice (Doc. 29). Judgment was entered on
March 29, 2016 (Doc. 30). The Court found the petitioner’s claims must be
dismissed for the following reasons: (1) the petition was barred by the waiver
provision of petitioner’s plea agreement; (2) the petitioner’s claim did not fit
within the savings clause; (3) notwithstanding petitioner’s reliance on Descamps,
his claim did not rely on a new rule of statutory construction; (4) Descamps did
not apply to the petitioner’s situation; and (5) petitioner would otherwise lose on
the merits because he stipulated that U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(a) applied to him.
On

April

25,

2016,

the

petitioner

filed

the

instant

Motion

for

Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) (Doc. 31).
ANALYSIS
The present motion for reconsideration purports to seek reconsideration of

2

the Court’s March 25, 2016 Order of Dismissal. However, the motion is a
duplicate of the November 2014 Motion to Reconsider. Petitioner has simply
refiled his November 2014 Motion to Reconsider, replacing all citations to

Descamps with citations to Johnson v. U.S. 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). 1 All claims of
error are in relation to the Court’s November 10, 2014 order dismissing the case
on preliminary review (Doc. 3). That order has already been vacated by the Court
(Doc. 8). Moreover, that order addressed petitioner’s claims in relation to

Descamps. 2 Therefore, petitioner’s references to Johnson are nonsensical even in
relation to the November 10, 2014 order dismissing the case on preliminary
review.
Rule 59(e) motions serve a narrow purpose and must clearly establish
either a manifest error of law or fact, or must present newly discovered evidence.

Moro v. Shell Oil Company, 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996). The present motion
to reconsider does not, in any way, address the Court’s March 26, 2016 order
dismissing the instant case. As the petitioner’s arguments do not address the
subject order of dismissal, they do not establish a manifest error of law or fact in
relation to the same. 3 Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion to reconsider is denied.
1

As noted previously, in his November 2014 Motion to Reconsider, petitioner argued (1) The
Court incorrectly concluded that Descamps only applies to ACCA cases; (2) the Court’s
conclusions were contradictory (relying on Descamps); (3) Descamps was retroactive; and (4) the
Court improperly concluded petitioner failed to show the savings clause was applicable (relying on
Descamps). The present motion to reconsider argues (1) The Court incorrectly concluded that
Johnson only applies to ACCA cases; (2) the Court’s conclusions were contradictory (relying on
Johnson); (3) Johnson was retroactive; and (4) the Court improperly concluded petitioner failed to
show the savings clause was applicable (relying on Johnson). With the exception of replacing
references to Descamps with references to Johnson, the two motions are identical.
2
There was no reason to address Johnson as that opinion has never been in issue in the instant
case.
3 Nor does the motion assert newly discovered evidence.

3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 31)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 23rd day of June, 2016.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2016.06.23
16:07:10 -05'00'
United States District Judge

4