Boone v. Quantana
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Petitioner's Reginald Boone's Motion 9 to Alter or Amend Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 12/22/2014.(LC)cc: COR, Petitioner via U.S. Mail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden,
Civil Action No. 5: 14-084-DCR
This matter is currently pending for consideration of Petitioner Reginald Boone’s
motion to alter or amend this Court’s judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
[Record No. 9] Boone has not shown that he is entitled to the relief sought. As a result, his
motion will be denied.
The purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion is to allow the district court to make its own
corrections, thus sparing the parties and appellate court the burden of unnecessary appellate
proceedings. Howard v. United States, 533 F.3d 472, 475 (6th Cir. 2008). However, while
Rule 59 allows for reconsideration of a court’s judgment, it does not permit parties to
effectively “reargue a case.” Howard, 533 F.3d at 475 (citing Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)). Motions to reconsider are
not “designed to give an unhappy litigant an opportunity to relitigate matters already
decided.” Davidson v. Roadway Express, Inc., 562 F.Supp.2d 971, 985 (N.D. Ohio 2008).
Rather, the moving party “must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must
present newly discovered evidence.” Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ’g, LLC, 477
F.3d 383, 395 (6th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
Boone’s primary argument in motion to alter or amend is that the Court erroneously
applied the Supreme Court’s holding in Watson v. United States, 552 U.S. 74 (2007), in
concluding that he is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. However, as explained at
pages 5 through 6 of the Court’s earlier Memorandum Opinion and Order, Watson does not
entitle Boone to the relief sought. [Record No. 5] The Court finds no error in its earlier
discussion or application of the holding in Watson to the facts presented here. Likewise, the
Court finds no error in the remainder of its prior opinion. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Petitioner Reginald Boone’s motion to alter or amend the prior
judgment is DENIED.
This 22nd day of December, 2014.
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?