Wilson v. United States of America

Filing 13

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movant's Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, [Doc. 11], is denied. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 8/24/2012. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
DEVIN C. WILSON,
Movant,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:10CV169 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Movant’s Motion to Alter Amend or
Reconsider Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 59(e). For the reasons set forth
below, the Motion is denied.
On May 29, 2012, the Court denied Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or
Correct Sentence under 28 U.S. C. § 2255. Movant now seeks to have the Court
alter, amend or reconsider the Order.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “do not mention motions for
reconsideration.” Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir.1999). “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.’ 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 2810.1, pp. 127-128 (2d ed.1995) (footnotes omitted).” Exxon

Shipping Co. v. Baker, __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 2617, n. 5 (2008). Rule 59(e)
was adopted to clarify that “the district court possesses the power to rectify its own
mistakes in the period immediately following the entry of judgment.” White v. New
Hampshire Dep’t of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71
L.Ed.2d 325 (1982) (internal quotations omitted). Moreover, “Rule 59(e) motions
serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence.” Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T .-O.T.
Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir.1998),(internal punctuation
and citations omitted). “Such motions cannot be used to introduce new evidence,
tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or
raised prior to entry of judgment.” United States v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting Innovative Home Health Care,
141 F.3d at 1286)).
In his Motion, Movant attempts to persuade the Court to reconsider its
findings which led to the conclusion that there is no basis for vacating Movant’s
sentence. Movant has presented nothing new, nor has he pointed the Court to any
mistake so severe as to establish manifest error. The Court articulated its reasoning
in finding that Movant was not entitled to relief. The Court is not required to refer
any matters to a magistrate judge, nor should the Court do so when the matter is
-2-

before the Court on a sentence imposed by the undersigned.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movant’s Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment, [Doc. 11], is denied.
Dated this 24th day of August, 2012.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-