Reed v. Steele

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 41 MOTION to Alter Judgment filed by Petitioner Arthur T. Reed. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 41) is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Abbie Crites-Leoni on 5/7/19. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ARTHUR REED,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
vs.
TROY STEELE,
Respondent.

Case No. 4:15CV1843 ACL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This closed matter under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 is before the Court on Petitioner Arthur Reed’s
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
(Doc. 41.)
On March 1, 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order denying Reed’s Petition,
and entered a Judgment of Dismissal. (Docs. 39, 40.) Reed now requests that the Court vacate
that Judgment and “amend all adverse rulings in this Court’s Memorandum and Order issued on
March 1, 2019.” (Doc. 41 at 1.)
Motions to alter or amend a judgment brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) “serve a limited
function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). They
cannot be used to introduce evidence that could have been offered during the pendency of the
motion, or “to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to the issuance of the
judgment.” Preston v. City of Pleasant Hill, 642 F.3d 646, 652 (8th Cir. 2011). A district court
has “broad discretion” in determining whether to grant a Rule 59(e) motion. Briscoe v. Cty. of
St. Louis, Mo., 690 F.3d 1004, 1015 (8th Cir. 2012).
Reed raises the same issues here as he did in his Petition and, to the extent he raises any
Page 1 of 2

new issues, the Court may not review them. Cole v. Roper, No. 4:10CV197CEJ, 2013 WL
869396, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 7, 2013). Further, upon a complete and careful review of Reed’s
Motion and the record, the Court finds that Reed has failed to establish a manifest error of law or
fact, the discovery of new evidence, or an intervening change in the law such that relief pursuant
to Rule 59(e) is warranted.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
(Doc. 41) is denied.

Dated: May 7, 2019.
/s/ Abbie Crites-Leoni
ABBIE CRITES-LEONI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2