Allen v. Outlaw

Filing 21

ORDER re 17 Rebuttal filed by Willie James Allen. The Court construes the petitioner's Rebuttal as a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and same is DENIED. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 12/28/2015 (dtj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
WILLIE JAMES ALLEN

PETITIONER

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO: 5:14-cv-60-DCB-MTP

WARDEN TIMOTHY OUTLAW

RESPONDENT
ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the petitioner Willie James
Allen’s “rebuttal” regarding the Final Judgment issued in this case
on August 12, 2015, which dismissed Allen’s Petition for Habeas
Corpus

under

petitioner’s

28

U.S.C.

“rebuttal”

§

2254.

(docket

The
entry

Court
17)

as

construes

the

a

for

motion

reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Having

carefully

considered

the

motion

and

the

respondent’s

response thereto, the Court finds as follows:
On

August

12,

2015,

this

Court

adopted

the

Report

and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker, found that
Allen’s Petition was untimely, and found that Allen failed to meet
his burden of proving that additional statutory or equitable
tolling is appropriate.
motion

for

There are three possible grounds for a

reconsideration:

(1)

an

intervening

change

in

controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence that was not
previously available, and (3) the need to correct a clear error of
law or prevent manifest injustice.

Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau

Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990).

Allen makes no

argument nor cites any authority to support a motion to alter or
amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e).

He fails to set forth

any change in controlling law or any new evidence that was not
previously available. Nor does he provide any basis upon which the
Court could find clear error of law or manifest injustice.

The

petitioner’s motion shall therefore be denied.
After the respondent’s response to his motion, petitioner
filed two additional documents in support of his motion for
reconsideration, a “Notice” (docket entry 19), and another “Notice”
(docket entry 20).

Neither of these documents provide a basis for

reconsideration of the Court’s Final Judgment.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitioner Willie James Allen’s
“rebuttal” (docket entry 17), which the Court treats as a motion
for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e), is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the

28th

day of December, 2015.

s/David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2