Holder v. United States Penitentiary Pollock
ORDER denying 75 Motion to Supplement Motion for Reconsideration; denying 76 Motion for Clarification; denying 79 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; denying 81 Motion to Amend Motion for Clarification; denying 83 Motion to to Disregard/Exclude Pages 14-20 and Correct Relief Requested; denying 85 Motion to Change or Correct the Title of "Notice of Appeal". Signed by Judge Elizabeth E Foote on 4/20/2016. (crt,Haik, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-2275
JUDGE ELIZABETH E. FOOTE
WARDEN, U.S. PENITENTIARY
POLLOCK, ET AL
MAG. JUDGE MARK HORNSBY
Before the Court are several motions filed by Petitioner Corey Holder: (1) a motion
for reconsideration of the Judgment in this matter, Record Document 75, (2) a motion for
clarification, Record Document 76, (3) an application to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal, Record Document 79, (4) a motion to amend his motion for clarification, Record
Document 81, (5) a motion to disregard pages 14-20 of his motion for reconsideration,
Record Document 83, and (6) a motion to amend the title of his notice of appeal, Record
Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Judgment denying habeas relief.
Altering or amending a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) is a disfavored, "extraordinary
remedy that should be used sparingly." Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479
(5th Cir. 2004); S. Constructors Group, Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir.
1993). Indeed, Rule 59(e) permits amendment to the judgment only "to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to [address] newly discovered evidence." Templet, 367 F.3d at 479
(citing Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989)). Further, a Rule
59(e) motion is "not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or
Page 1 of 3
arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment." Id. at
479 (citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)). The Petitioner
argues that the Court should reconsider its Judgment denying habeas relief because the
search warrant that authorized a buccal swab of the Petitioner stemmed from a wholly
unrelated crime. Petitioner misunderstands his fourth amendment rights. “Use of the
fruits of a search supported by a valid warrant is not confined to the offense giving
probable cause. Evidence seized pursuant to a warrant issued for one offense may be
used at a trial for another crime.” United States v. Haydel, 649 F.2d 1152, 1159 (5th Cir.),
opinion corrected on other grounds, 664 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. Unit A Dec. 1981). The Court
therefore DENIES the Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration [Record Document 75].
The Petitioner’s motion for clarification and his motion to amend his motion for
clarification in effect ask the Court to rule that the time within which the Petitioner had to
file a motion for reconsideration should toll based on confusion created by the clerk
mislabeling a letter filed by the petitioner as a motion for reconsideration. The Court
DENIES both motions [Record Documents 76 and 81] as moot because the Court has
denied the Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on the merits. For the same reason, the
Court DENIES the Petitioner’s motion asking the Court to disregard pages 14-20 of his
motion for reconsideration [Record Document 83].
Because the Court has found that there is no merit to Petitioner’s habeas petition,
it also finds that Petitioner is not appealing the Court’s Judgment in good faith and
consequently DENIES the Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
[Record Document 79]. Finally, the Court DENIES the Petitioner’s application to amend
Page 2 of 3
the title of his notice of appeal [Record Document 85] because the title as it currently
stands will not, as the Petitioner fears, prevent a court from addressing all issues raised
in the filing.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 20th day of April, 2016.
Elizabeth E. Foote
United States District Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?