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

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