Mitchell v. Woods

Filing 32

ORDER denying 29 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Sedrick Mitchell,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 15-10764
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge

Jeffrey Woods,
Respondent.

Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti

________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT [29]
On December 20, 2016, the Court denied Sedrick Mitchell’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus which challenged his Michigan convictions.
(ECF No. 16.) Mitchell appealed, and the Sixth Circuit denied a
certificate of appealability. Mitchell v. Woods, No. 17-1013 (6th Cir. June
26, 2017).
Mitchell subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment,
asserting a new substantive claim challenging his state convictions. (ECF
No. 22.) The Court transferred the motion to the Sixth Circuit under 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b) because it amounted to a second or successive habeas

petition. (ECF No. 28.) The Sixth Circuit thereafter determined that the
motion was correctly transferred, and that Mitchell failed to demonstrate
entitlement to review of his new claim. In re Mitchell, No. 23-1579 (6th
Cir. Oct. 6, 2023).
Before the Court is Mitchell’s motion to alter or amend the order
transferring his motion for relief from judgment to the Sixth Circuit.
(ECF No. 29, PageID.1927.) Mitchell asserts that the Court erred in
transferring his motion as a successive petition because the motion
properly challenged the Court’s authority to adjudicate his original
habeas petition. (Id. at PageID.1929.)
A motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59 “may be granted if there is a clear error of law, newly
discovered evidence, [and] an intervening change in controlling law, or to
prevent manifest injustice.” GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters, 178
F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). “A Rule 59
motion ‘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.’” Brumley v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 909 F.3d 834, 841 (6th
2

Cir. 2018) (quoting Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486, n.5
(2008) (additional quotation omitted)).
The Court will deny Mitchell’s motion. Contrary to his argument,
the Sixth Circuit conclusively determined that his motion for relief from
judgment was properly treated as a second or successive habeas petition.
See In re Mitchell, No. 23-1579, slip op. at *2. The Sixth Circuit found
that despite his allegations, “Mitchell’s Rule60(b) motion did not attack
any ‘defect in the integrity’ of the federal habeas proceedings,” permitting
the Court to adjudicate his new claim. Id. The law-of-the-case doctrine
“precludes reconsideration of issues decided at an earlier stage of the
case.” Yeschick v. Mineta, 675 F.3d 622, 633 (6th Cir. 2012) (internal
citations and quotations omitted); United States v. Moored, 38 F.3d 1419,
1421 (6th Cir. 1994). Because the arguments raised in Mitchell’s motion
were already rejected by the Sixth Circuit, his motion to alter or amend
the judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 31, 2024
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 31, 2024.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager

4