Sanderson v. Alcorn County Chancery Court et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 10/7/20. (jla)

Case: 1:20-cv-00081-SA-JMV Doc #: 11 Filed: 10/07/20 1 of 2 PageID #: 60

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
JOHN JR. SANDERSON
v.

PETITIONER
No. 1:20CV81-SA-JMV

ALCORN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT, ET AL.

RESPONDENTS

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the court on the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the
court’s May 12, 2020, memorandum opinion and final judgment dismissing the instant case for
want of subject matter jurisdiction. The court interprets the motion, using the liberal standard
for pro se litigants set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), as a motion to amend
judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). An order granting relief under Rule 59(e) is appropriate
when: (1) there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) where the movant
presents newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable, or (3) to correct a manifest
error of law or fact. Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003).
The deadline for seeking relief under Rule 59(e) is 28 days from entry of judgment.
Our sister court in the Southern District of Mississippi has made clear that “[w]hatever
may be the purpose of Rule 59(e) it should not be supposed that it is intended to give an unhappy
litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.” Atkins v. Marathon Le Tourneau Co., 130
F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990) (citations omitted); Brown v. Mississippi Co-op Extension
Serv., 89 F. App'x 437, 439 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Atkins with approval). The Atkins court
further cautioned that any litigant who brings a motion to reconsider based on the need to correct
a clear error of law or manifest injustice should “evaluate whether what may seem to be a clear
error of law is in fact simply a point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant.” Id.

Case: 1:20-cv-00081-SA-JMV Doc #: 11 Filed: 10/07/20 2 of 2 PageID #: 61

Rule 59 may not be used merely to re-urge an argument. See, e.g., Exxon Shipping Co. v.
Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (“Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment,
but it ‘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.’”) (citation omitted).
In the present motion, the petitioner sets forth the facts of his criminal case as he sees
them and asks the court to intervene in state court matters. For the reasons set forth in its prior
memorandum opinion and final judgment, the court does not have the power to do so. The
petitioner has not presented any justification that would warrant altering or amending the
judgment in the present case. Instead, he merely disagrees with the court’s findings and reurges matters previously decided by the court. For these reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to
the relief he seeks in the instant motion. He has neither asserted nor proven any of the
justifications to amend a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). As such, his request to alter or
amend judgment is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this, the 7th day of October, 2020.

/s/ Sharion Aycock
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE