Isaac v. Rikard
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 11 LETTER-FORM MOTION by Emanuel Rodriguez Isaac to Reconsider 9 Memorandum Opinion and Order and 10 Judgment Order. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/20/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mk)
Case 1:17-cv-02236 Document 12 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 52
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
EMANUEL RODRIGUEZ ISAAC,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-02236
BARBARA RICKARD, Warden,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration of the court’s order of August 18, 2020 (ECF No.
9), dismissing his § 2241 petition.
(ECF No. 11.)
For the
reasons discussed below, the motion for reconsideration is
DENIED.
Concerning the propriety of granting a motion to alter or
amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has stated that “a district court
has the discretion to grant a Rule 59(e) motion only in very
narrow circumstances:
‘(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 to
prevent manifest injustice.’”
Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701,
708 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Collison v. Int’l Chemical Workers
Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir.1994)); see also United States
Case 1:17-cv-02236 Document 12 Filed 09/20/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 53
ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284,
290 (4th Cir. 2002).
The circumstances under which this type of motion may be
granted are so limited that “[c]ommentators observe ‘because of
the narrow purposes for which they are intended, Rule 59(e)
motions typically are denied.’”
Woodrum v. Thomas Mem’l. Hosp.
Found., Inc., 186 F.R.D. 350, 351 (S.D.W. Va. 1999) (citation
omitted).
Rule 59(e) motions may not be used, however, to raise
arguments which could have been raised prior to the
issuance of the judgment, nor may they be used to
argue a case under a novel legal theory that the party
had the ability to address in the first instance.
Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.
1998).
“[M]ere disagreement” with a court’s legal analysis
“does not support a Rule 59(e) motion.”
Hutchinson v. Staton,
994 F.2d 1076, 1082 (4th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff's motion does not fall within the limited
circumstances under which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted as
enunciated by the Fourth Circuit.
First, by failing to file
timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings
and Recommendation (“PF&R”), petitioner waived his right to de
novo review by this court.
1363 (4th Cir. 1989).
See Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d
Second, he has identified no new law or
new evidence bearing on his case; nor has he identified a clear
error of law.
As the PF&R explains, petitioner cannot proceed
2
Case 1:17-cv-02236 Document 12 Filed 09/20/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 54
under § 2241 because his claim does not fall within the savings
clause test set forth in In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir.
2000).
(ECF No. 9, at 7-10.)
Nothing in petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration changes that reality.
For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 11)
is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of September, 2021.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior 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?