Baranski v. United States of America

Filing 340

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Keith Byron Baranski's Motion to Amend Findings and Alter or Amend the Judgment of Dismissal, or For New Trial is DENIED in all respects. [Doc. 326] Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 7/19/2016. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

KEITH BYRON BARANSKI,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:11-CV-123 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This closed matter is before the Court on petitioner Keith Byron Baranski’s Motion to
Amend Findings and Alter or Amend the Judgment of Dismissal, or For New Trial, filed pursuant
to Rules 52(b), 59(a) and 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner’s motion follows
this Court’s issuance of a lengthy Memorandum and Order on March 31, 2016 (the “Order”) (Doc.
324), that denied the relief sought by petitioner in his Third Verified Amended Petition for Writ of
Error Coram Nobis.
The factual and procedural background of this matter was extensively addressed in the Order
and will not be repeated here. Numerous issues were addressed in the Order but petitioner takes
issue with the Court’s findings and urges error as to two principal findings, that: (1) there was no
“promise” by the government of a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 sentence reduction for
prosecution witness James Carmi; and (2) the government was under no obligation to produce
Carmi’s medical records from the United States Bureau of Prisons to Baranski’s criminal defense
team. The United States opposes the motion and petitioner has filed a reply. For the following
reasons, the motion will be denied in all respects.

I. Legal Standards
A. Rule 52(b)
Petitioner asserts that the Court has authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b)
to correct its findings and amend the judgment. Rule 52(b), titled “Amended or Additional
Findings,” states: “On a party’s motion filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment, the
court may amend its findings–or make additional findings–and may amend the judgment
accordingly. The motion may accompany a motion for new trial under Rule 59.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
52(b) (2016).
Rule 52(b) is primarily “intended to permit a party to move the trial court to clarify or
supplement factfindings to enable the appellate court to understand the factual issues determined at
trial.” Pro Edge L.P. v. Gue, 377 F.Supp.2d 694, 698 (N.D. Iowa 2005) (quoting Clark v. Nix, 578
F. Supp. 1515, 1516 (D. Iowa 1984)). “The Rule is not meant to provide an avenue for relitigating
issues on which the moving party did not prevail at trial. Consequently, a party may not use the
motion to amend the findings to advance new theories or secure a rehearing on the merits.” 9 James
Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 52.60[3] (3d ed. 2014). “The purpose of Rule 52(b)
is to provide the court an opportunity to correct manifest errors of law or fact at trial.” Pro Edge,
377 F.Supp.2d at 698 (citing cases). A motion to amend may be based on newly discovered
evidence, but a movant “may not introduce evidence that was available at trial but not proffered.
Similarly, it is improper for a party to move to amend to advance new theories based on evidence
that was proffered at trial or to reassert arguments already rejected by the court.” 9 Moore’s Federal
Practice § 52.60[4][b].

2

Although petitioner moves for relief under Rule 52(b), he contends that the Court committed
manifest errors of fact and law in the Order, not that the Court failed to engage in sufficient fact
finding and legal analysis to permit appellate review.1 See Boatmen’s First Nat’l Bank of Kansas
City v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement Sys., 57 F.3d 638, 639 (8th Cir. 1995) (finding on
defendant’s appeal from grant of preliminary injunction, that district court had failed to “engage in
the fact finding and legal analysis required by Rule 52(b)”). As a result, the Court believes
petitioner’s motion is properly addressed under Rule 59(e), which he also invokes, rather than Rule
52(b). “[A]ny motion questioning the correctness of a judgment is functionally a Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) motion, regardless of how the motion is styled.” Innovative Home Heath Care, Inc. v. P.T.O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998).
B. Rule 59(e)
Rule 59(e) provides, “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28
days after the entry of the judgment.” Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. Petitioner’s motion is timely
under Rule 59(e). The Rule 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 (1982) (internal quotations omitted). 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, 141 F.3d at 1286, and provide “litigants
with a narrowly constrained opportunity” to do so. Painters Dist. Council No. 2 v. Anthony’s
Painting, LLC, 494 F. App’x 703, 705 (8th Cir. 2012). The Court has broad discretion in deciding
whether to grant a motion under Rule 59(e). Innovative Home Health Care, 141 F.3d at 1286. Rule

1

Petitioner affirmatively states that his motion does not rely on newly discovered evidence.
3

59(e) 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) (quoted case omitted); see
also Holder v. United States, 721 F.3d 979, 986 (8th Cir. 2013).
C. Rule 59(a)(1)(B)
In the alternative, petitioner’s motion seeks a new trial under Rule 59(a)(1)(B). This Rule
provides:
(1) Grounds for New Trial. The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or
some of the issues–and to any party–as follows:
....
(B) after a nonjury trial, for any reason for which a rehearing has heretofore
been granted in a suit in equity in federal court.
Rule 59(a)(1)(B). Thus, the Rule “allows a new trial to be granted in a nonjury action if a new trial
might be obtained under similar circumstances in a jury action under subdivision (a)(1)(A).” 11
Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2804 (3d ed.). It is almost
entirely within the discretion of the trial court whether to grant a new trial. See Rule 59(a); Belk v.
City of Eldon, 228 F.3d 872, 878 (8th Cir. 2000). “A new trial is appropriate when the first trial,
through a verdict against the weight of the evidence, an excessive damage award, or legal errors at
trial, resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” Gray v. Bicknell, 86 F.3d 1472, 1480 (8th Cir. 1996).
The key question is whether a new trial is required in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
Maxfield v. Cintas Corp., No. 2, 563 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir. 2009).

4

II. Discussion
A. Rule 59(a) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
As previously stated, petitioner argues the Court committed manifest errors of fact and law
in determining that (1) there was no “promise” by the government of a Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 35 sentence reduction for prosecution witness James Carmi; and (2) the government was
under no obligation to produce Carmi’s medical records from the United States Bureau of Prisons
to Baranski’s criminal defense team.
With respect to the first issue, petitioner’s motion discusses a number of exhibits relating to
the alleged government promise to Carmi for a Rule 35 reduction, then discusses why petitioner
believes the Court manifestly erred in reaching its conclusion that no Rule 35 promise was made.
Petitioner’s motion repeats the arguments he presented at the evidentiary hearing and in post-hearing
briefing, and explains his disagreement with the Court’s factual findings and legal conclusions. The
Court gave careful consideration to petitioner’s arguments and evidence presented at the hearing,
including the exhibits discussed in the instant motion, and to his arguments and proposed findings
and conclusions submitted following the hearing. Having done so, the Court issued its findings and
conclusions and ruled against petitioner on the issue of a Rule 35 promise. Petitioner’s motion fails
to convince the Court that it has made a manifest error of fact or law in this regard.
Petitioner next alleges manifest error in the Court’s findings regarding the government’s
alleged suppression of evidence of Carmi’s memory loss. Again, petitioner’s motion largely repeats
the arguments he presented at the evidential hearing and in post-hearing briefing, which the Court
rejected. In the Order, the Court found that petitioner’s defense team was provided with or obtained
significant impeachment evidence concerning Carmi’s injury, memory loss and mental state, which

5

the defense was able to use to cross-examine Carmi, and that the records petitioner claims were not
disclosed were similar to and largely cumulative of the information already in his possession. The
Court concluded that petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the existence of the
requisite “reasonable probability of a different result” had the allegedly suppressed information been
disclosed to the defense. Nothing in petitioner’s motion causes the Court to believe that it made a
manifest error of fact or law.
B. Alternative Rule 59(e) Motion for New Trial
The Court concludes that petitioner has not shown he is entitled to relief pursuant to Rule
59(e), as he has not established that the Court committed a manifest error of fact or law, that the
Court’s Order was against the weight of the evidence, or that the Court committed other legal errors
that resulted in a miscarriage of justice. See Maxfield, 563 F.3d at 694.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Keith Byron Baranski’s Motion to Amend
Findings and Alter or Amend the Judgment of Dismissal, or For New Trial is DENIED in all
respects. [Doc. 326]

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 19th day of July, 2016.

6