Jenkins v. Bowersox

Filing 29

OPINION 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. 20 ], is denied. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 3/23/17. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DONTAY JENKINS,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL BOWERSOX,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13CV1779 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner=s Motion for Reconsideration
and/or in The Alternative Notice of Appeal to Rule 59(e) of the Fed.R.Civ.Proc.
[Doc. No. 20].

For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.

On September 30, 2016, the Court entered its Opinion, Memorandum and
Order denying Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence.
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, 554 U.S. 471, 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.
Accordingly,
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.20], is denied.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2017.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE