Blumenthal v. Caruso

Filing 27

ORDER denying 26 Motion for New Trial/Rehearing. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION THOMAS BLUMENTHAL, 180578 Petitioner, v. Case No. 2:08-cv-14858 Honorable Victoria A. Roberts MICHAEL CURLEY, Respondent. __________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S “MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL/REHEARING” On December 7, 2011, the Court denied Petitioner Thomas Blumenthal’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Blumenthal v. Curley, No. 2:08-cv14858, 2011 WL 6090183 (E. D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2011). Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s “Motion for New Trial/Rehearing,” filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(b) provides that “[a] motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.” No trial occurred in this case. Based upon the relief Petitioner seeks, the Court construes his Motion as having been filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which concerns Motions to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment, filed under Rule 59(e), is “entrusted to the court’s sound discretion.” Keweenaw Bay Indian Comty. v. United States, 940 F.Supp. 1139, 1140 (W.D. Mich. 1996) (citing Huff v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir. 1982)). Rule 59(e) motions are generally granted when one of the following circumstances arises: (1) because of an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) because evidence not previously available has become available; or (3) necessity to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Nagle Indus., Inc. v . Ford Motor Co., 175 F.R.D. 251, 254 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (citing Keweenaw Bay, 940 F. Supp. at 1141). “Such motions, however, are ‘not intended as a vehicle to relitigate previously considered issues;’ ‘should not be utilized to submit evidence which could have been previously submitted in the exercise of reasonable diligence;’ and are not the proper vehicle to attempt to obtain a reversal of a judgment ‘by offering the same arguments previously presented.’” Id. (quoting Keweenaw Bay, 904 F. Supp. at 1141). None of the arguments set forth by Petitioner in support of his Motion satisfy the standards under which Rule 59(e) Motions may be granted. Petitioner simply states that “an improper standard was used in deciding his [P]etition for [W]rit of [H]abeas [C]orpus.” Petitioner’s Motion, at 1. For the reasons stated, the Court denies Petitioner’s “Motion for New Trial/Rehearing” [dkt. # 26]. IT IS ORDERED. S/Victoria A. Roberts Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge Dated: January 30, 2012 The undersigned certifies that a copy of this document was served on the attorneys of record and Thomas Blumenthal by electronic means or U.S. Mail on January 30, 2012. s/Carol A. Pinegar Deputy Clerk 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?