Kornhardt v. United States of America

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant James Kornhardt's motion to reconsider pursuant to Rule 59(e) is DENIED. (Doc. 29)IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant James Kornhardt's motion to schedule an evidentiary hearing and for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Doc. 30). Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 6/8/2016. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES K. KORNHARDT,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-214 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This closed matter is before the Court on movant James Kornhardt’s pro se motion to
reconsider made pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and motion for an
evidentiary hearing and for appointment of counsel. Movant objects to the denial of his habeas
petition, which was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the following reasons, movant’s motions
will be denied.
This Court has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion under Rule 59(e).
Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th
Cir. 1998). 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 (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.” United States v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d
930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks 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.” Id. (quoting Innovative Home Health Care, 141 F.3d

at 1286)). In order to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion, “the movant must show that (1) the evidence
was discovered after trial; (2) the movant exercised due diligence to discover the evidence before
the end of trial; (3) the evidence is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (4) a new
trial considering the evidence would probably produce a different result.” Id. (citing U.S. Xpress
Enter. Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 320 F.3d 809, 815 (8th Cir. 2003)).
Movant has not shown that he is entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 59(e). Movant has failed
to establish a manifest error of law or fact, the discovery of new evidence, or an intervening change
in the law. The case upon which movant bases his motion to reconsider, Washington v. Secretary
Pa. Dep't of Corr., 801 F.3d 160, 162 (3d Cir. 2015), was decided before judgment was entered in
this case. Movant could have brought this case to the Court’s attention prior to the entry of
judgment. But in any event, there is nothing in movant’s motion to reconsider that would have
changed the outcome in this case. Movant raised the admission of Steven Mueller’s statements on
direct appeal, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found the argument to be without merit.
United States v. Mueller, 661 F.3d 338, 349 (8th Cir. 2011). Movant is, therefore, precluded from
raising it again in his § 2255 motion. See Bear Stops v. United States, 339 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir.
2003); Dall v. United States, 957 F.2d 571, 572 (8th Cir. 1992). Moreover, movant’s counsel was
not ineffective for failing to adequately raise the issue because his counsel did challenge the
admissibility of Steven Mueller’s statements. The Court ruled the statements were admissible, which
was affirmed on appeal. Movant’s assertions in his motion to reconsider do not provide grounds for
relief from the judgment in this case.
Movant also requests that the Court schedule an evidentiary hearing and appoint counsel
because the government “elected not to contest” his motion for reconsideration. The Court finds

2

there is no reason to hold an evidentiary hearing in this closed matter as movant’s motion to
reconsider is without merit.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant James Kornhardt’s motion to reconsider pursuant
to Rule 59(e) is DENIED. (Doc. 29)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant James Kornhardt’s motion to schedule an
evidentiary hearing and for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Doc. 30)

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this

8th

day of June, 2016.

3