Barmettler v. Wallace

Filing 20

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner=s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Fed.R.Civ.Proc. [Doc. #16] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 11/15/17. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM BARMETTLER,
Petitioner,
v.
IAN WALLACE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13CV2567HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgement, [Doc. #16]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
On March 16, 2017, the Court entered its Opinion, Memorandum and Order
denying Petitioner’s request for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C §2254. Plaintiff now
seeks to have the Court alter or amend its order and judgment under Rule 59(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or Rule 60(b).
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).
1

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
2

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.
Rule 60(b) provides relief from a final judgment , order or proceeding under
circumstances where there has been some mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence , with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for new trial; fraud, misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; the judgment is void; the judgment has been
satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been
reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or any other
reason that justifies relief.
In his Motion, Petitioner attempts to persuade the Court to grant relief from its
findings which led to the conclusion that Petitioner failed to establish a basis for
relief from judgment. Petitioner has presented nothing new, nor has he pointed the
Court to any mistake so severe as to establish manifest error under Rule 59(e).
Petitioner has not articulated any arguments or facts that would even facially compel
relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). Instead he has partially reiterated the same arguments
which were the basis of his original petition under 28 U.S.C §2254. The Court
articulated its reasoning in finding that Petitioner failed to establish entitlement to
3

relief under that 28 U.S.C §2254 action. Nothing has changed, nor should the
Opinion, Memorandum and Order in this matter be altered or amended.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner=s Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Fed.R.Civ.Proc. [Doc. #16] is DENIED.
Dated this 15th day of November, 2017.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4