Matthews v. USA
Filing
44
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that Movant's objections (# 40 ) are OVERRULED. It is further ORDERED that Movant's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (# 43 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Marcia A. Crone on 4/15/2021. (rpc, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MICHAEL H. MATTHEWS, #26799-177
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-422
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:13-CR-208(1)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In a motion to alter or amend judgment (#43), pro se Movant Michael Harrison Matthews
asks the Court to reconsider its Final Judgment dismissing his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct a Sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
I. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Fifth Circuit has observed that “[a]ny motion that draws into question the correctness
of a judgment is functionally a motion under Civil Rule 59(e), whatever its label.” Harcon Barge
Co. v. D&G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 669-70 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (citing 9 Moore’s
Federal Practice ¶ 204.12[1] at 4-67 (1985)). “Rule 59(e) serves the narrow purpose of allowing a
party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. . . .
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) (internal citations and
quotations omitted). The Fifth Circuit recognizes that Rule 59(e) “favor[s] the denial of motions to
alter or amend a judgment.” Southern Constructors Grp., Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611
(5th Cir. 1993). The rule does not exist to be a vehicle for re-litigating old issues, presenting the case
under new theories, obtaining a rehearing on the merits, or taking a “second bite at the apple.” Sequa
Corp v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998). However, it allows a party to “question the
correctness of a judgment.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 478. The rule for reconsideration of a final
judgment allows a court to alter or amend a judgment because of (1) an intervening change in
controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not available previously, (3) the need to correct
a clear error of law or fact, or (4) to prevent a manifest injustice. Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp.,
Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003).
II. DISCUSSION
The record shows that the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which she recommended that Movant’s § 2255 motion be denied and
dismissed with prejudice because it was time-barred (#34). Movant was granted an extension of
time in which to file objections to the Report and Recommendation (#37). Having received no
objections within seven days after Movant’s objections were due, this Court adopted the Report
and Recommendation, denied Movant’s § 2255 motion, and dismissed the case (#38). Two days
later, the Clerk of Court received Movant’s objections (#40).
In the current motion for reconsideration, Movant complains that the Court sent mail to
him at the wrong address, which resulted in him filing objections untimely. A review of the case
shows that Movant listed his address as USP Pollock, P. O. Box 2099, Pollock, LA 71467-2099.
He never filed a change of address. Until notified in writing by a prisoner of a change of address,
the Clerk of Court sends mail to the last address provided by the prisoner. Had Movant filed a
change of address with the Court, his address would have been changed, and his mail would have
been sent to the correct address. In the interest of justice, however, the Court has considered
Movant’s untimely objections (#40). In his objections, Movant fails to show that he timely filed
his § 2255 motion or that he is entitled to equitable tolling.
2
In sum, Movant fails to show an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of
new evidence not previously available, the need to correct a clear error of law or fact, or the need
to prevent a manifest injustice based on the dismissal of his case. Schiller, 342 F.3d at 567. He
fails to show he is entitled to relief.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Movant’s objections (#40) are OVERRULED. It is further
ORDERED that Movant’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (#43) is DENIED. All motions
by either party not previously ruled upon are DENIED.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 15th day of April, 2021.
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?