Sayyed v. Director, TDCJ-CID
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying re 17 MOTION for Reconsideration re 16 Judgment filed by Muamar A. Sayyed. Signed by Judge Richard A. Schell on 9/11/2013. (kls, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
MUAMAR A. SAYYED, #01524927
§
VS.
§
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12cv9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Muamar A. Sayyed, a former Texas prison inmate, proceeding pro se, filed a
motion for reconsideration (docket entry #17) in this case.
To succeed on a motion for
reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party must “clearly
establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence.” Ross v.
Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005).
A Rule 59 motion should not be used to rehash
evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been raised or were raised before entry of
judgment. Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990). Reconsideration of a
judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. Templet v.
HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to relief because his prior habeas proceeding (Cause
Number 4:11cv229) was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust, yet the present case was
dismissed as successive. He states that he has now exhausted his state court remedies, and asks the
1
court to reconsider and reinstate his petition.
Under Fifth Circuit precedent, “a later petition is successive when it: (1) raises a claim
challenging the petitioner’s conviction or sentence that was or could have been raised in an earlier
petition; or (2) otherwise constitutes an abuse of the writ.” Crone v. Cockrell, 325 F.3d 833, 836-37
(5th Cir. 2003); accord United States v. Orozco-Ramirez, 211 F.3d 862, 867 (5th Cir. 2000).1 A
petition that is literally second or successive, however, is not a second or successive application for
purposes of AEDPA if the prior dismissal is based on prematurity or lack of exhaustion. See Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 487, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1605, 146 L. Ed.2d 542 (2000) (declining to
construe an application as second or successive when it followed a previous dismissal due to a
failure to exhaust state remedies). To hold otherwise would mean that a dismissal of a first habeas
petition for technical procedural reasons would bar the prisoner from ever obtaining federal habeas
review.
A review of the three relevant cases filed by Petitioner shows that in his first habeas petition,
Cause Number 4:10cv148, the case was dismissed with prejudice. In that case, Petitioner’s petition
was not dismissed because of prematurity. It was dismissed with prejudice because the issues he
raised were without merit. Under Crone and Orozco-Ramirez, Petitioner was required at that time
to present all available claims in his first federal petition. “The requirement that all available claims
Although the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided Orozco-Ramirez in the context
of a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, it also found it appropriate to rely upon cases decided
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in reaching its decision. See 211 F.3d at 864 n.4. In the present context, this
court also finds it appropriate to make no distinction between cases decided under § 2255 and those
under § 2254.
1
2
be presented in a prisoner’s first habeas petition is consistent not only with the spirit of AEDPA’s
restrictions on second and successive habeas petitions, but also with the preexisting abuse of the writ
principle.” Orozco-Ramirez, 211 F.3d at 870.
“The requirement serves the singularly salutary
purpose of forcing federal habeas petitioners to think through all potential post-conviction claims
and to consolidate them for a unitary presentation to the district court.” Id. at 870-71 (quoting Pratt
v. United States, 129 F.3d 54, 61 (1st Cir. 1997)).
In Petitioner’s second federal habeas proceeding, Cause Number 4:11cv229, the court
improvidently dismissed the case based on Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state remedies on the
issues raised. As noted above, however, Petitioner should have brought all claims in his first habeas
petition. Accordingly, in his third federal habeas proceeding (the present case), Cause Number
4:12cv9, the petition was properly dismissed as successive. For these reasons, this court did not
have subject matter jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s petition unless he first received permission
from the Fifth Circuit. Petitioner may not file a successive petition in this court without the
permission of the Fifth Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A). He has not shown that he received
permission from the Fifth Circuit to file the present petition. If he obtains permission from the Fifth
Circuit, he may file a successive petition for this court’s consideration.
In sum, Petitioner does not provide the court with any grounds to alter or amend the
judgment. He has failed to clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or newly discovered
evidence. Ross, 426 F.3d at 763. His opportunity to bring all of his complaints was available to him
in his first federal habeas petition, Cause Number4:10cv148. To raise additional claims, he must
first obtain permission from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to file a successive petition.
Therefore, in the absence of any new arguments or evidence that could not have been raised in
3
Petitioner’s first proceeding, the court denies Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration as he has failed
to state any grounds sufficient to reopen or revisit the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). It is accordingly
ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (docket entry #17) is DENIED.
.
SIGNED this the 11th day of September, 2013.
_______________________________
RICHARD A. SCHELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?