VU v. WETZEL et al

Filing 75

ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 59(e) IS DENIED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR ON 6/15/16. 6/15/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILEDTO PRO SE PETITIONER, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL, 1 COPY TO LEGAL BIN.(pr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

/:Ji.ED

vU/v'

15 20/B

CIVIL ACTION

NGUYEN VU

v.
No. 14-5691

JOHN E. WETZEL, et al.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
AND NOW, this

15th

day of June, 2016, upon consideration of the motion for

relief from judgment filed by Nguyen Vu pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) (Doc. No. 73), I make the following findings and reach the following conclusions:
1.
In 2008, Vu was convicted in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas of
aggravated assault, criminal mischief and possession of an instrument of crime. Vu filed
a timely federal prose petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On
May 10, 2016, I denied Vu's habeas petition after approving and adopting the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells and
overruling Vu's objections thereto. 1
2.
On June 9, 2016, Vu filed the instant Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). He contends that my decision to deny his habeas
claims was contrary to the record and based on an unreasonable determination of the facts
as well as errors of law.
3.
Vu is not entitled to relief under Rule 59(e). In discussing the standard of
relief under Rule 59(e), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:
The scope of a motion for reconsideration, we have held, is
extremely limited. Such motions are not to be used as an opportunity
to relitigate the case; rather, they may be used only to correct
.JUN 15 2016
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
CLERK OF COURT evidence. Howard Hess Dental Labs., Inc. v. Dentsply Int'/ Inc., 602
F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010). "Accordingly, a judgment may be

ENTERED

1

I also concluded that there was no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

altered or amended [only] ifthe party seeking reconsideration shows
at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in
the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not
available when the court [denied the petition for writ of habeas
corpus]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice." Id. (quotation marks omitted).
Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011).

4.
Here, Vu's Rule 59(e) motion must be denied because it is an attempt to
relitigate his habeas petition. He does not point to an intervening change in the
controlling law or any new evidence. To the extent that Vu attempts to point to a "clear
error of law" that would compel reconsideration, I find that he merely sets forth the same
arguments presented, and rejected, in his original habeas petition.
5.
Vu's arguments to amend or alter judgment are unpersuasive. Because he
has not presented any evidence of an error of law or misapplication of law to the facts
which would lead me to vacate that decision, his Rule 59(e) motion is without merit.
As a result, I HEREBY ORDER that the motion for relief pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59( e) is DENIED.

/s/ J. William Ditter. Jr.
J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR., J.

2