Yates v. Bledsoe

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - AND NOW, this 9th day of April, 2012, it is ordered that petnr.'s mtn. 11 for reconsideration under FRCP 59(e) is denied. 7 (See memo for complete details.) Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 4/9/12. (am, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES A. YATES,
Petitioner
v.
B. A. BLEDSOE,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:11-CV-0592
(Judge Caldwell)

MEMORANDUM

James A. Yates, an inmate at USP-Lewisburg, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania,
has filed a motion for reconsideration of our order of June 24, 2011, dismissing for lack of
jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The petition challenged the validity of his 1997
conviction and life sentence in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. In issuing our order, we rejected Petitioner’s reliance on United States v. O’Brien,
U.S.

, 130 S.Ct. 2169, 176 L.Ed.2d 979 (2010), as a basis justifying our review under

section 2241. See 2011 WL 2518316 (M.D. Pa.).
Since it is a challenge to a final order, Petitioner’s motion is a motion to alter
or amend governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A Rule 59(e) motion is a device of limited
utility. A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is used “‘to correct manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666,
669 (3d Cir. 2010)(quoting Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). “A proper Rule 59(e) motion therefore must rely on one of
three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice.” Id.

A Rule 59(e) “motion for reconsideration may not be used as a means to
argue new facts or issues that were not presented to the court in the context of the matter
previously decided.” Worbetz v. Ward North America, Inc., 54 F. App’x 526, 533 (3d Cir.
2002)(nonprecedential). Nor can it be used to raise new legal issues. United States v.
Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006)(quoted case and internal
quotation marks omitted).
Petitioner’s motion fails to meet this standard. It presents for the first time
arguments based on DePierre v. United States,

U.S.

, 131 S.Ct. 2225, 180 L.Ed.2d

114 (2011), and Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 68 S.Ct. 514, 92 L.Ed. 644 (1948).
These cases have nothing to do with the legal argument Yates presented in his 2241
petition on the basis of O’Brien. They therefore cannot be grounds for granting a Rule
59(e) motion.
Even if we considered Petitioner’s reconsideration motion as another 2241
petition, we could not grant relief. As we explained to Petitioner in our memorandum
accompanying the June 24, 2011, order, Petitioner could only invoke section 2241 if he
“had no prior opportunity to challenge his conviction for conduct later deemed to be noncriminal by an intervening change in law.” 2011 WL 2518316, at *1. Decided in 1948,
Cole is not an intervening change in law. As for DePierre, that case held that the
references to “cocaine base” in 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), meant
not just cocaine base in crack form but all forms of cocaine base.

U.S. at

, 131

S.Ct. at 227-28. Yates was convicted of various drug offenses involving cocaine and
crack cocaine, Yates v. Smith, 190 F. App’x 113, 113 (3d Cir. 2006) (nonprecedential)

-2-

(affirming dismissal of a previous 2241 petition), but he makes no attempt to argue how
DePierre rendered his conduct innocent. He argues instead issues involving the
sufficiency of the evidence, whether the indictment charged him with the offense of
conviction, and whether the drug type and quantity should have been resolved by the
jury.1
We will issue an appropriate order.

/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

Date: April 9, 2012

1

We note here that Cole also did not decriminalize conduct previously believed to be
unlawful. It held that a state supreme court violated the defendants’ due process rights when it
upheld their convictions under a criminal provision under which they had not been indicted or tried,
erroneously passing over their challenges to the offense under which they had actually been
indicted and tried. 333 U.S. at 202, 68 S.Ct. at 517.

-3-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES A. YATES,
Petitioner
v.
B. A. BLEDSOE,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:11-CV-0592
(Judge Caldwell)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 9th day of April, 2012, it is ordered that Petitioner’s motion
(Doc. 11) for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is denied.

/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge