Johnson v. United States of America

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T Randa on 1/26/2016 denying 32 Motion to Amend/Correct filed pro se by Ronald Johnson.. (cc: all counsel - via US Mail to Ronald Johnson - FCI Pekin, IL) (lz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 13-C-1304
(Criminal Case No. 10-Cr-121)

RONALD L. JOHNSON,
Movant.

ORDER
Pro se Movant Ronald L. Johnson filed a motion to amend or correct
(ECF No. 32) pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
with respect to the Court’s November 9, 2015, Decision and Order and
November 10, 2015, Judgment denying his motion to vacate, set aside or
vacate judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and denying a certificate of
appealability.
Rule 59(e) permits a court to amend a judgment only if the movant
demonstrates a manifest error of law or fact or presents newly discovered
evidence. See, e.g., Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 683 F.3d 805, 813 (7th
Cir. 2012). “This rule enables the court to correct its own errors and thus
avoid unnecessary appellate procedures.” Id. (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted). The decision to grant or deny a Rule 59(e)

motion is entrusted to the “sound judgment” of the district court. Id. The
arguments presented and case law cited in Johnson’s motion do not
establish that the Court committed a manifest error of law or fact and,
therefore, do not provide a basis for amending or altering the prior decision
or issuing a certificate of appealability and therefore Johnson’s motion to
amend or alter judgment (ECF No. 32) is denied. The Court also declines
to issue a certificate of appealability.
SO ORDERED Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this

26th

day of

January, 2016.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-2-