Henderson v. Beightler

Filing 14

Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 6/9/11. Petitioner's motion to alter or amend judgment is denied. Petitioner's motion for default judgment, for preliminary injunction and for summary judgment are denied as moot. No further post-judgment motions in this case will be entertained by this Court. The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith and there is no bases on which to issue a certificate of appealability. (Related Docs. 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ) (M,G)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
PAUL S. HENDERSON,
Petitioner,
v.
MARGARET BEIGHTLER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:11 CV 86
JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN
ORDER

This action was summarily dismissed on April 6, 2011, under Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases, for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Since then, Petitioner
has filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc # 10), Petition for Default Judgment (Doc #
11), Petition for Preliminary Injunction (Doc # 12), and Petition for Summary Judgment (Doc #13).
A court may grant a motion to amend or alter judgment if there is a clear error of law
or newly discovered evidence exists, an intervening change in controlling law occurs, or to prevent
manifest injustice. See Gencorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir.1999).
“It is not the function of a motion to reconsider either to renew arguments already considered and
rejected by a court or ‘to proffer a new legal theory or new evidence to support a prior argument
when the legal theory or argument could, with due diligence, have been discovered and offered
during the initial consideration of the issue.’ ” McConocha v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. of
Ohio, 930 F.Supp. 1182, 1184 (N.D. Ohio, 1996) (quoting In re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury,
854 F.Supp. 1403, 1408 (S.D. Ind., 1994)).

Petitioner now simply asserts that his convictions are void because the trial court
lacked jurisdiction, and he is therefore entitled to immediate release. The Petition, however, sets
forth 11 grounds for relief based on asserted constitutional violations in connection with his
convictions. Nothing in the Motion to Alter or Amend reasonably suggests this Court erred in
requiring exhaustion of state court remedies, or that there is newly discovered evidence, an
intervening change in controlling law, or manifest injustice.
Accordingly, the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc # 10) is denied.
Additionally, the Petition for Default Judgment (Doc # 11), Petition for Preliminary Injunction (Doc
# 12), and Petition for Summary Judgment (Doc #13) are denied as moot. No further postjudgment
motions in this case will be entertained by the Court. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no
basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed.R.App.P. 22(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2011

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2