Williams v. Richmond Circuit Court

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 7/25/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

GARY B. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:12CV55-HEH

v.

RICHMOND CIRCUIT COURT,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Denying Rule 59(e) Motion)

Gary Buterra Williams, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, attempted to
remove his state criminal prosecution to this Court. Because Williams "failed to
demonstrate that the requisite jurisdiction exists to allow him to remove his criminal

cases to this Court," the Court remanded the matter to the Circuit Court for the City of
Suffolk. Williams v. Richmond Circuit Court, No. 3:12CV55-HEH, 2013 WL 1856237,
at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 29, 2013). The matter is before the Court on Williams's Motion to

Vacate that decision pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). For the reasons
stated herein, the motion will be DENIED.

The United States Court ofAppeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized three

grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): "(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 orprevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076,
1081 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., Ill F. Supp. 1406,

1419 (D. Md. 1991); Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D.

Miss. 1990)).1 Williams fails to demonstrate that the Court committed a clear error of
law in concluding that Williams failed to demonstrate jurisdiction existed to remove his

criminal prosecution to this Court. Nor does Williams demonstrate any other basis for

granting Rule 59(e) relief. Accordingly, Williams's Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 30)
will be DENIED.

An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

AfctA^*"

Is!

HENRY E.HUDSON

Date: ^Julu 2.S 3,013
Richmond, Virginia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'I Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,403 (4th Cir. 1998) (noting
that a'"Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or
present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry ofjudgment.'" (quoting 11
Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S2810 1 at 127-28
(2d ed. 1995))).