Williams

Filing 12

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment; denying 11 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANDRE WILLIAMS,
Case Number: 5:16-CV-13649
HON. JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

Petitioner,
v.
J.A. TERRIS,
Respondent.
/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND JUDGMENT AND DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Andre Williams’ Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment and Motion for Relief from Judgment. Williams, who is presently
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Facility in Milan, Michigan, filed a habeas corpus
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his classification as a career offender under
United States Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.2. The Court denied the petition on the ground
that it was not properly filed under § 2241. Williams now seeks relief under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1) & (6).
Williams argues that he is entitled to relief under Rule 59(e) to correct a clear error
of law and prevent manifest injustice because he was improperly classified as a career
offender. 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). The Court held that the petition was not properly filed under §
2241 because Williams did not establish that § 2255(e)’s “savings clause” applied.
Nothing in Williams’ motion establishes that the Court’s decision was in error. Thus,
Williams is not entitled to relief under Rule 59(e).
Williams’ Rule 60(b) motion is similarly meritless. He seeks relief under
subsections (1) and (6) on the ground that the Court failed to adjudicate his actual
innocence claim. Under Rule 60(b)(1), a district court may grant relief from a final
judgment or order only upon a showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). It is intended to provide relief to a party in two
instances: “(1) when the party has made an excusable litigation mistake or an attorney in
2

the litigation has acted without authority, or (2) when the judge has made a substantive
mistake of law or fact in the final judgment or order.” Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 226
F.3d 483, 490 (6th Cir. 2000). “Rule 60(b)(6) should apply only in exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances which are not addressed by the first five numbered clauses of
the Rule.” Olle v. Henry & Wright Corporation, 910 F.2d 357, 365 (6th Cir. 1990)
(quotation omitted). It is invoked only in those “unusual and extreme situations where
principles of equity mandate relief.” Id. (emphasis in original). Rule 60(b)(6) exists to
allow courts to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish
justice in extraordinary circumstances. Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 614-15
(1949). The fact that Williams asserted an actual innocence claim did not, by itself, allow
him to file a § 2241 petition. The Sixth Circuit has held that a claim of actual innocence
of a career offender enhancement may be filed under § 2241 only when three
requirements are satisfied. Hill v. Masters, 836 F.3d 591, 599-60 (6th Cir. 2016). The
Court found the requirements were not satisfied in Williams’ case. The arguments raised
in Williams’ motion do not establish that the Court’s decision was the result of a
substantive mistake of law or fact or an excusable litigation mistake; nor do Williams’
arguments establish that equity mandates relief in this case.

3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment” (Dkt. 10) and “Motion for Relief from Judgment” (Dkt. 11) are DENIED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: January 31, 2018

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
of record on this date, January 31, 2018, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

4