Williams v. Houston et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 35 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LARRY E. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL L. KENNEY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3170

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner Larry E. Williams’ (“Petitioner”
or “Williams”) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (Filing 35.) In the Motion,
Williams asks me, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), to reconsider my October 10,
2014, Order and Judgment dismissing his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Id.)
In particular, Williams asks me to reconsider my finding that the United States
Supreme Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), did not excuse
the procedural default of his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims. (Id.)
“Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence . . . . Such 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.” U.S. v. Metro. St. Louis
Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal citations and quotations
omitted).
I have carefully reviewed Williams’ Motion and find that he is not entitled to
relief under Rule 59(e). As my October 10, 2014, Memorandum and Order explained,
Williams’ ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims were raised in an initial-review
post-conviction proceeding, but they were not preserved on appeal. (See Filing 33 at
CM/ECF pp. 9-10.) As a result, Williams’ ineffective assistance of trial counsel
claims were procedurally defaulted. (Id.) Under these circumstances, Martinez does
not provide cause to excuse the default. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 10-11.) See also Arnold

v. Dormire, 675 F.3d 1082, 1086-88 (8th Cir. 2012) (concluding Martinez does not
apply where ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims were litigated in an
initial-review collateral proceeding, but not preserved on appeal).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Williams’ Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment (filing 35) is denied.
DATED this 26th day of November, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
2