Sharp v. United States of America

Filing 10

ORDER denying 9 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 3/26/20. (jla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
DAN V. SHARP

PETITIONER

v.

No. 3:19CV86-SA-JMV

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RESPONDENT

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the court on the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration [9] of
the court’s final judgment dismissing the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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.
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 merely re-urges arguments the court previously
rejected or offers arguments he could have made in his petition. He 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 rulings. 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. In addition, as Mr. Sharp’s trial has already taken place, the
instant petition seeking release from pretrial detention is also DISMISSED as moot.

SO ORDERED, this, the 26th day of March, 2020.

/s/ Sharion Aycock
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE