Dunn v. United States of America
Filing
20
OPINION AND ORDER denying 18 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; denying 19 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by U.S. District Judge Robert H. Cleland on 7/11/2018. (lgw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Criminal Case No. 08-20429-1
Civil Case No. 14-02816
TOMMIE DUNN,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
Defendant Tommie Dunn was convicted by a jury of Interference with Commerce
by Threats or Violence, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, Robbery and Attempted Robbery, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c), and Aiding and Abetting 18 U.S.C. § 2. This court denied Defendants’ motion
for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Dkt. # 1; 13.) The court concluded that Defendant’s
motion to vacate was “an attempt to relitigate his direct appeal and ask[ed] this court to
overrule the Sixth Circuit.” (Dkt. # 13, Pg. ID 285.) The court’s order further found that
Defendant was not entitled to relief under Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133
(2010) or Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017). (Id. at 286, 288.) The court
also concluded that “jurists of reason would not debate the court’s analysis in its opinion
and order denying Defendant’s motion to vacate with respect to any of Defendant’s
claims because Defendant’s claims are without merit” and declined to issue a certificate
of appealability (“COA”). (Dkt. # 14.)
Defendant has now filed a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Dkt. #
18) and a motion for certificate of appealability. (Dkt. # 19.) The court will construe both
motions as motions for reconsideration since they ask this court to review the
correctness of its prior opinion and order.
In the absence of a local court rule providing for motions for reconsideration, they
are construed as motions to alter or amend the judgment. See In re Greektown
Holdings, LLC, 728 F.3d 567, 574 (6th Cir. 2013). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
permits a party to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment. A court may grant a Rule
59(e) motion to alter or amend if there is: “(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovery
evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest
injustice.” Johnson v. Sikon, No. 17-2359, 2018 WL 2144047, at *3 (6th Cir. Apr. 5,
2018) (quoting Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005)).
Defendant has not presented any argument for why the court’s prior order is
incorrect. Instead, Defendant reargues the merits of his claims and why they are worthy
of appellate review. (Dkt. # 19, Pg. ID 311-312.) The court fully considered and rejected
Defendant’s arguments in its prior order. For example, while Defendant reframes his
Johnson argument as one under Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204, 1211 (2018),
there is no difference in his argument. (Dkt. # 19, Pg. ID 312.) As already explained in
this court’s order, Johnson, Dimaya, and its sister cases all concern what is known as
the “residual clause.” (Dkt # 13, Pg. ID 287-88.) Defendant was not sentenced based on
the residual clause and therefore, the invalidation of the clause is immaterial to
Defendant’s case.
In sum, Petitioner has not identified a clear error of law in the court’s orders
denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus and denying a COA. Accordingly,
2
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s a motion for certificate of appealability (Dkt. #
19) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis (Dkt. # 18) is DENIED AS MOOT.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
/
Dated: July 11, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, July 11, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(810) 292-6522
s/Cleland/judgesdesk/c2orders/08-20429.DUNN.SecondDenyCOA.aju
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?