Cook v. Scutt

Filing 36

OPINION & ORDER denying 30 Motion to Alter or Amend re 30 filed by Elijah Cook. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ELIJAH JAMES COOK,
Case Number: 2:11-CV-12798
HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS

Petitioner,
v.
CARMEN PALMER,
Respondent.
/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
RULE 59(e) MOTION TO ALTER AND AMEND
Petitioner Elijah James Cook filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court denied the petition on February 2, 2016 (ECF No.
28). Now before the Court is Petitioner’s Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter and Amend (ECF
No. 30).
The disposition of a motion filed under Rule 59(e) is “entrusted to the court’s
sound discretion.” Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. United States, 940 F. Supp.
1139, 1140 (W.D. Mich. 1996), citing Huff v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 119,
122 (6th Cir. 1982). Generally, a court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion in one of three
situations: (1) to correct a clear error of law; (2) to account for newly discovered
evidence; (3) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) to prevent
manifest injustice. Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005).
However, a motion filed under 59(e) “‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to

raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment.’” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008), quoting 11 C.
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 pp. 127-128 (2d ed. 1995).
“A motion to alter or reconsider a judgment is an extraordinary remedy and should be
granted sparingly.” Plaskon Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 644,
669 (N.D. Ohio 1995).
Petitioner argues that the Court erred in denying his habeas petition without first
holding an evidentiary hearing. The “AEDPA restricts the availability of federal
evidentiary hearings. For a claim that was adjudicated on the merits in a state court
proceeding, sections 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2) of AEDPA apply, and the district court is
limited to the record that was before the state court at the time.” Keeling v. Warden,
Lebanon Corr. Inst., 673 F.3d 452, 464 (6th Cir. 2012). Petitioner’s habeas claims were
denied on the merits in state court. Because the state courts adjudicated the merits of
Petitioner’s claims, this Court’s review was limited to the record that was before the state
court. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 180 (2011). Second, Petitioner’s argument that
the Court should not have relied on the state court’s findings of fact without first
conducting an evidentiary hearing is meritless because, as discussed, an evidentiary
hearing was not warranted in this case.
Finally, Petitioner argues that the Court erred in denying habeas relief without first
allowing Petitioner to fully brief the legal merits of his claims. Petitioner filed a petition
fully setting forth his claims for habeas relief and a thirty-five page reply brief along with
2

eighty-five pages of supporting documents. The Court finds that Petitioner had ample
opportunity to present his claims to this Court.
The Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No.
14).
SO ORDERED.

s/ Nancy G. Edmunds
NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 5, 2016

3