Blumenthal v. Caruso

Filing 27

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

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