Cole v. Roper

Filing 65

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) [Doc. # 62 ] is denied. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 3/7/13. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LANCE A. COLE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
DON ROPER,
Respondent.

No. 4:10-CV-197(CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of petitioner to alter or amend
judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Respondent has not filed an opposition to
the motion and the time for doing so has expired.
I.

Procedural History

Petitioner Lance Cole was convicted of forcible sodomy on June 29, 2005. He
was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to fifteen years of imprisonment. The
Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner’s conviction. The trial court denied
petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed
the denial.
On February 1, 2010, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting four grounds for relief. The Court denied the
petition on February 1, 2013, concluding that the claims were either procedurally
barred, inappropriate for federal review, or without merit.
II.

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) was adopted to clarify a district court’s
power to correct its own mistakes in the time period immediately following entry of
judgment. Norman v. Arkansas Dep’t of Educ., 79 F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing

White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employ’t Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (1982)). Rule 59(e)
motions serve a limited function of correcting “manifest errors of law or fact[.]”
Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d
1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation and citations omitted). Such motions
cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender legal theories, or raise arguments
which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment. Id.
Petitioner does not argue that this Court made any manifest errors of law or
fact in rejecting the four grounds asserted in his petition for habeas corpus. Instead,
petitioner argues that the Court did not consider or review certain documents prior to
issuing its decision in this matter. These documents include: “petitioner’s traverse
response, and points and authority in support thereof, and request for an evidentiary
hearing” [Doc. #21]; “petitioner’s status report and attached amend traverse” [Doc.
# 45]; “citation of supplemental authorities with supplemental arguments” [Doc. #51];
the “petition to supplement the record and pleadings in support of petitioner’s amend
traverse” [Doc. # 56, 58], and accompanying exhibits.
Prior to issuing its decision, the Court reviewed all of petitioner’s filings in this
action, which include all the issues and facts that were presented and raised in his
original petition, traverse response, amended traverse, and supplemental documents.
After a full review of the record, the Court then addressed the merits of petitioner’s
arguments that were not procedurally barred or inappropriate for federal review.
Petitioner also argues that it was error for the Court to issue a decision in this
case prior to receiving certain documents that he requested from the Clerk of Court.
The Court finds no merit in this argument. Petitioner filed his petition on February 1,
2010, the Court issued a case management order on February 22, 2010, respondent

-2-

timely filed his answer, and petitioner timely filed his reply. Accordingly, the case was
ready for disposition.
III.

Conclusion

Petitioner has not shown any manifest errors in the Court’s previous denial of
the petition for the writ of habeas corpus.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to alter or amend judgment
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) [Doc. # 62] is denied.

____________________________
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 7th day of March, 2013.

-3-