Buggs v. Quintana

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Pla's 6 Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 59(e) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on January 14, 2013. (AWD) cc: Pla via US Mail

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DIVISION OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON CARL BUGGS, JR., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA, Warden, Defendant. Civil Case No. 5:12-cv-337-JMH MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER *** This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 59(e) [D.E. 6], in which he asks memorandum this opinion Court and to order reconsider and judgment its earlier denying his petition for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [De 4 & 5]. “A motion under Rule 59(e) is not an opportunity to re-argue a Indians v. case.” Sault Engler, 146 Ste. F.3d Marie 367, 374 Tribe (6th of Chippewa Cir. 1998) (citing FDIC v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992)). if Instead, a Rule 59(e) motion may only be granted “there is a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or to prevent manifest injustice.” GenCorp, Inc. v. American Intern. Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s motion and concludes that it does not satisfy this standard on any of the permissible grounds. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 59(e) [D.E. 6] shall be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. This the 14th day of January, 2013. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?