McCall v. NFN Mosley

Filing 23

ORDER denying 22 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on May 12, 2014. (lda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
BONDARY MCCALL, #43827-019
also known as Bondaryl McCall
VERSUS

PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-846-DCB-MTP

BENITA MOSLEY, Warden

RESPONDENT

ORDER
BEFORE THE COURT is Petitioner’s Motion [ECF No. 22] for Reconsideration filed pursuant
to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner, an inmate of the Bureau of Prisons,
proceeding pro se, moves the Court to reconsider the Final Judgment [ECF No. 21] entered on April 18,
2014, dismissing this Petition for habeas corpus relief. Having considered the Motion and applicable case
law, the Court finds that the Motion is not well-taken and should be denied.
In order to obtain relief under Rule 59(e), the moving party “must clearly establish either a
manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence” and the request for relief
“cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment
issued.” Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863-64 (5th Cir.2003)(citation omitted). The United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has stated that when deciding a motion filed pursuant to Rule
59(e), a district court should consider the following non-inclusive factors: (1) the reasons for the
plaintiff’s default; (2) the importance of the evidence to the plaintiff’s case; (3) whether the evidence was
available to the plaintiffs before they responded to the underlying motion; and (4) the likelihood that the
defendants will suffer unfair prejudice if the case is reopened. Sturges v. Moore, 73 Fed. App’x. 777, 778
(5th Cir. 2003)(citing Ford v. Elsbury, 32 F.3d 931, 937-38 (5th Cir. 1994)). Litigants considering a Rule
59(e) motion have been “strongly cautioned” to carefully consider the grounds for such a motion. Atkins
v. Marathon LeTorneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 n.1 (S.D. Miss. 1990). “Whatever 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.” Id. at 626.
Petitioner has not provided any basis for relief in his Motion. As such, the Court concludes that
Petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirements for obtaining relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See e.g., Templet v. Hydrochem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004)
(“Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used
sparingly.”). Therefore, it is hereby,
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion [ECF No. 22] for Reconsideration is denied.
SO ORDERED this the 12th day of May, 2014.

s/David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2