Suntoke v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Filing
59
OPINION AND ORDER denying 51 Motion. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 2/27/2018. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KALI S. SUNTOKE,
CASE NO. 2:15-CV-01354
JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, has
filed a Motion to Reconsider & Recall the Mandate Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). (ECF No.
51.) That motion is directed at this Court’s August 17, 2017, Opinion and Order denying
Petitioner’s request for release on bail while this habeas action is pending. (ECF No. 50.) For
the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly authorize motions for
reconsideration of judgments. Rule 59(e) does, however, allow for motions to alter or amend a
judgment if such motions are filed no later than 28 days after a judgment is entered. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e).
“Motions for reconsideration do not allow the losing party to repeat arguments
previously considered and rejected, or to raise new legal theories that should have been raised
earlier.” Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Assoc. v. Arctic Express, Inc., 288 F. Supp. 2d 895,
900 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Moreover, such motions are
only granted in limited circumstances— when there is: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly
discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent
manifest injustice.
Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing
GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir.1999)).
Petitioner does not argue any of these accepted bases for altering or amending this
Court’s decision denying his request for bail while this federal habeas action is pending. Rather,
Petitioner asserts that he has been subject to biased treatment in violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the United Sates Constitution. (ECF No. 51, at PAGEID #1591.) In support of this
assertion, Petitioner cites several cases where federal district courts granted federal criminal
defendants requests for their release while their criminal appeals were pending. (ECF No. 53 at
PAGEID # 1602.) Petitioner further asserts that the defendants in those cases were granted
release because they were U.S. citizens and that Petitioner has been denied similar relief in this
case because he is not a U.S. citizen. (See id.) Petitioner further asserts that the Constitution
protects the natural rights of all persons, including aliens, and not just the rights of citizens.
The cases cited by Petitioner are, however, unavailing. The defendants in all of those
cases were convicted in federal court and sought release while they directly appealed their
convictions. Accordingly, their requests for release were governed by the provisions of 18
U.S.C. § 3143(b). In contrast, Petitioner is not directly appealing his conviction. Indeed,
Petitioner could not directly appeal his conviction in this action because he was convicted in
state court. Petitioner is, instead, collaterally attacking his state court conviction in this federal
habeas proceeding. Accordingly, his request for release is governed by a different standard.
Specifically, in order to be released on bail pending a decision on the merits of his habeas
petition, Petitioner “must be able to show not only a substantial claim of law based on the facts
surrounding the petition but also the existence of some circumstance making the motion for bail
exceptional and deserving of special treatment in the interests of justice.” Lee v. Jabe, 989 F.2d
2
869, 870 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990) (citing
Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). That is
the standard this Court used in its decision denying Petitioner’s request for release on bail. (ECF
No. 50.)
This Court found that the record failed to reflect a substantial claim of law or
exceptional circumstances. The cases cited by Petitioner do not convince this Court to alter or
amend that judgment.
Petitioner’s other assertion is equally unavailing.
Petitioner complains that the
Respondent opposed his prior motion (ECF No. 25), seeking discovery of his medical records
and that had he obtained those records through discovery, he would be able to substantiate an
exceptional circumstance. (ECF No. 51, at PAGEID # 1591, 1595.) Petitioner, however,
described in detail his medical conditions in his motion seeking release on bail.1 (ECF No. 46-4
at PAGE ID # 1350–59.) The Court was therefore aware of the medical conditions but still
concluded that there was no exceptional circumstance warranting release.
Thus, even if
Petitioner had been allowed to obtain medical records through discovery, his request for release
would have been denied. Moreover, even if Petitioner’s medical conditions had constituted an
exceptional circumstance, the record does not reflect a substantial claim of law. For these
reasons, Petitioner’s complaints about discovery do not persuade this Court to alter or amend its
bail determination.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: February 27, 2018
_____s/James L. Graham_________
JAMES L. GRAHAM
United States District Judge
1
The Court notes that Petitioner can obtain those medical records using the prison institution’s policies.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?