West v. Russell

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 57 ) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 10/22/2018. (CLO) (Main Document 58 replaced on 10/22/2018) (CLO).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JACOB B. WEST,
Petitioner,
v.
TERRY RUSSELL,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15 CV 45 DDN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Doc. 57). The Court initially
granted petitioner a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 24), but following a post-judgment
evidentiary hearing, issued a second judgment denying the petition on September 10,
2018.

(Doc. 55).

Petitioner seeks to amend this second judgment.

(Doc. 57).

Respondent has not responded.
Rule 59(e) motions seek a substantive change in a judgment. BBCA, Inc. v. United
States, 954 F.2d 1429, 1432 (8th Cir. 1992).

They “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). They cannot be used to introduce new evidence, offer new
legal theories, or raise arguments that could have been raised before the entry of
judgment. United States v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th
Cir. 2006). Thus, arguments and evidence that could have been presented earlier in the
proceedings cannot be presented in a Rule 59(e) motion. Peters v. General Service
Bureau, Inc., 277 F.3d 1051, 1057 (8th Cir. 2002).

Petitioner argues that the Court’s decision overlooks facts that demonstrate
petitioner’s right to relief and also rests on findings of fact that are not fully supported by
the record. (Doc. 57). After careful consideration of each of petitioner’s arguments, the
Court concludes that the motion does not provide grounds for relief from this Court’s
order. Petitioner has failed to establish a manifest error of law or fact, the discovery of
new evidence, or an intervening change in the law.
As the Court stated in its memorandum opinion (Doc. 55), the testimony of
petitioner’s attorney at the evidentiary hearing contradicted the basis upon which the
Court initially granted petitioner a writ of habeas corpus. The Court credited petitioner’s
attorney’s version of the events. For the reasons discussed in its memorandum opinion,
the Court is not persuaded that petitioner’s attorney failed to inform him of any
constitutionally-required information, or that petitioner’s choice to plead guilty was the
result of any constitutionally defective process.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the
judgment (Doc. 57) is DENIED.

/s/ David D. Noce
k
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Signed on October 22, 2018.