McDaniels v. State of South Carolina

Filing 31

ORDER denying 30 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Kevin Wayne McDaniels. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 2/3/2016. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Kevin W. McDaniels,
C/A No. 1:12-cv-00975-TLW
PETITIONER,
v.
ORDER

State of South Carolina; and Warden of FCIWilliamsburg,
RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner Kevin W. McDaniel (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for habeas relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 on April 9, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) By Order dated May 24, 2012, this Court accepted
United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) and
denied Petitioner’s § 2254 petition. (ECF No. 12.) This case now comes before the Court on
Petitioner’s “Motion to Reconsider Case Based Upon ‘Extraordinary Circumstances’ and
Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice.” (ECF No. 30.) In the motion, Petitioner seeks
reconsideration of this Court’s May 2012 Order denying habeas relief.
Parties who seek reconsideration of an adverse judgment may file either a motion to alter
or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or a motion seeking
relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). The Court has considered Petitioner’s motion
and, as discussed below, concludes that (1) Petitioner fails to state sufficient grounds to alter or
amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), and (2) Petitioner fails to show a sufficient basis for relief
of judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a litigant to file a motion to alter or amend
a judgment. Fed R. Civ. P. 59. The Fourth Circuit has recognized three grounds for which a motion

1

to reconsider under Rule 59(e) may be granted: “(1) to accommodate an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error
of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403
(4th Cir. 1998). Rule 59 motions require careful consideration, and the Fourth Circuit has
admonished that “[i]t is an extraordinary remedy that should be applied sparingly.” Mayfield v.
Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
A Rule 59(e) motion “cannot be used to argue a case under a new legal theory.” Ross v. Marshall,
426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005). In his motion, Petitioner fails to show any intervening change
in controlling law, account for any new evidence, or show clear error of law or manifest injustice.
The Court has carefully reviewed his motion and concludes that, even if the motion was not timebarred, Petitioner has not set forth sufficient grounds to alter or amend the prior Order pursuant
Rule 59(e).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a litigant to move for relief from a final
judgment for “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on
an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer
equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Petitioner alleges he
is entitled to relief based on broad assertions of manifest injustice, extraordinary circumstances,
and new evidence. His claims and vague factual allegations in support of those claims do not
present sufficient evidence in support of any Rule 60(b) factor for which the Court may grant relief.
Thus, the Court concludes that, even if this motion was not time-barred under Rule 60, Petitioner

2

fails to set forth a sufficient basis to be relieved of the Order under Rule 60(b).
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not set forth sufficient
grounds to cause the Court to alter or amend its prior order. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 30) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
February 3, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

3