Metcalf v. Norman

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Shohn Metcalf's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment 26 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Shohn Metcalf's Motion for Leave to File Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Out of Time 25 is DENIED as moot.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 5/5/16. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SHOHN C. METCALF,
Petitioner,
vs.
JAY CASSADY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13-CV-1216 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Shohn C. Metcalf’s Motion for Leave to File
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Out of Time (Doc. No. 25) and Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Doc. No. 26)
A motion to alter or amend judgment “shall be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the
judgment.” Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. In computing whether a Rule 59(e) submission is timely
filed, courts adhere to the guidelines set forth in Rule 6(a). The day of the event that triggers the
deadline is not counted, and all other days - including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
holidays - are counted, with one exception: if the period ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday, then the deadline falls on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Here, the order denying Metcalf’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody as untimely and dismissing his case was entered and
docketed on February 29, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 23, 24) Excluding that day and including all other
days, the 28-day period expired on March 28, 2016, the day Metcalf’s motion to alter or amend
judgment was received and filed by the Clerk’s Office. Therefore, Metcalf’s Rule 59(e) motion is
timely and his motion for leave to file out of time will be denied as moot.
Turning to the merits of Metcalf’s Rule 59(e) motion, Rule 59(e) relief may be granted
1

only under the following circumstances: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice. Young v. U.S., No. 4:12-CV-1983-CAS, 2013 WL 3786338, at *1
(E.D. Mo. July 18, 2013); Bannister v. Armontrout, 807 F. Supp. 516, 556 (W.D. Mo. 1991), aff’d,
4 F.3d 1434 (8th Cir. 1993).
Metcalf seeks relief from judgment based on an intervening change in controlling law
concerning the AEDPA filing deadline, namely Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (2012), which
explicitly abrogated Riddle v. Kemna, 523 F.3d 850 (2008), a case he relied upon in his traverse to
support his argument that the issuance of the appellate court’s mandate is the proper triggering
event for starting the clock for purposes of AEDPA tolling and computation. Metcalf’s habeas
petition was filed on June 25, 2013. The Gonzalez opinion, issued in 2012, does not, therefore,
constitute an intervening change in controlling law. The Court applied the appropriate precedent in
its analysis of Metcalf’s petition and Metcalf fails to point to any deficiencies in that analysis.
For these reasons, Metcalf is not entitled to relief from judgment.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Shohn Metcalf’s Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment [26] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Shohn Metcalf’s Motion for Leave to File
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Out of Time [25] is DENIED as moot.
Dated this 5th day of May, 2016.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2