Rey v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Fed.R.Civ.Proc. [Doc. No.s 52 and 53 ], is denied. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 12/5/14. (KJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ROBERT DANIEL REY,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner=s Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Fed.R.Civ.Proc. [Doc. No.’s 52 and 53].
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
On March 25, 2014, the Court entered its Opinion, Memorandum and Order
denying Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence, after having
conducted an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner’s claim that he requested counsel to
file an appeal. Petitioner now seeks to have the Court reconsider the Order.
ARule 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 Athe 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, ARule 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). ASuch 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)).
District courts Awill ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration unless the
party demonstrates a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or demonstrates
new facts or legal authority that the party could not have previously produced with
reasonable diligence to the court.@ ElderBKeep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 988 (8th
Cir.2006); Monsanto Co. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 2011 WL 322672 at *4
(E.D.Mo. Jan.31, 2011); Arnold v. ADT Sec. Services, Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721 (8th
Cir.2010). A motion to reconsider Acannot be used to raise arguments which could
have been raised prior to the issuance of judgment.@ Hagerman v. Yukon Energy
Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir.1988). District courts have Abroad discretion@ in
determining whether to reconsider judgment. Hagerman, 839 F.2d at 413.
In his Motion, Petitioner attempts to persuade the Court to grant relief from its
findings which led to the conclusion that he was not entitled to relief. Petitioner 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
Petitioner’s arguments did not entitle him to have his sentence vacated. Nothing
has changed, nor should the judgment in this matter.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner=s Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Fed.R.Civ.Proc. [Doc. No.’s 52 and 53], is
Dated this 5th day of December, 2014.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?