Bilauski v. Roper
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's motion to alter or amend # 36 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's motion to stay # 38 is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 5/16/13. (ARL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
TROY STEELE, et al.,
Case No. 4:09 CV 1983 RWS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On April 25, 2013, Respondent filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) to amend the judgment I entered on March 29, 2013 granting a writ of habeas corpus to
Petitioner Richard Bilauski.
Under Rule 59(e), a party may file a motion to alter or amend a judgment no later than 28
days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited
function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.
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.” U.S. v. Metro.
St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). A movant is not entitled to relief under Rule 59(e) when the movant “merely
reassert[s] positions the district court [has] already rejected.” Prof’l Mgmt. Assoc., Inc. v
KPMG, LLP, 345 F.3d 1030, 1033 (8th Cir. 2003) (district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Rule 59(e) motion where movant merely reasserted positions previously rejected); See
also 11 C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995
and Supp. 2001).
Respondent is not entitled to relief under Rule 59(e). Respondent has failed to identify a
manifest error of law or fact and has failed to present any newly discovered evidence. Instead,
Respondent supports his Rule 59(e) motion with evidence and arguments previously presented in
his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. In support of his motion,
Respondent cites to a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Marshall v. Rodgers, which
was issued after I entered judgment. 133 S. Ct. 1446 (2013) (holding that the Ninth Circuit erred
in looking to circuit precedent to determine whether there was clearly established federal law
regarding a defendant’s right rescind a waiver of counsel). But Marshall offers no new precedent
relevant to this matter. I did not grant Petitioner a writ of habeas corpus based on the existence
of Supreme Court precedent regarding when a trial court must address a motion to waive
counsel, I granted the writ because I found the Missouri Court of Appeals’ decision to be an
unreasonable application of the clearly established federal law set forth in Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Because Respondent attempts to relitigate his unsuccessful
positions and does not present evidence that I have not previously considered, I will deny
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to alter or amend [#36] is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to stay [#38] is DENIED as
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 16th day of May, 2013.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?