King v. Smith
Filing
19
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 3/17/2017 DENYING 18 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Mario King at Oshkosh Correctional Institution) (jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MARIO KING,
Petitioner,
Case No. 16-CV-732-JPS
v.
JUDY SMITH,
Respondent.
ORDER
On February 16, 2017, the Court denied the petitioner Mario King’s
(“King”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed this matter with
prejudice. (Docket #16 and #17). On March 16, 2017, King filed a motion to
reconsider that ruling. (Docket #18). King states that his motion is made
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Id. at 1.
FRCP 59(e) permits a party to request reconsideration of a judgment
within twenty-eight days of its entry. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). King’s motion was
submitted on the twenty-eighth day after the Court’s judgment was issued,
and is, therefore, timely. A FRCP 59(e) motion may only be granted when
“the movant presents newly discovered evidence that was not available at the
time [the judgment was issued] or if the movant points to evidence in the
record that clearly establishes a manifest error of law or fact.” Burritt v.
Ditlefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 253 (7th Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted). The Seventh
Circuit instructs that “a ‘manifest error’ occurs when the district court
commits a ‘wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize
controlling precedent.’” Id. (quoting Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601,
606 (7th Cir. 2000)). The motion “does not provide a vehicle for a party to
undo its own procedural failures, and it certainly does not allow a party to
introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could and should have
been presented to the district court prior to the judgment.” Moro v. Shell Oil
Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996). Finally, “relief under Rule[] 59(e) . . . [is
an] extraordinary remed[y] reserved for the exceptional case[.]” Foster v.
DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Dickerson v. Bd. of Educ. of
Ford Heights, Ill., 32 F.3d 1114, 1116 (7th Cir. 1994)).
King’s motion simply rehashes his arguments from his briefs on the
petition. It makes no attempt to present new evidence or argue that the Court
ignored controlling precedent. The Oto court’s observations apply here:
A “manifest error” is not demonstrated by the
disappointment of the losing party. It is the “wholesale
disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling
precedent.” Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F.Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D.Ill.
1997). Contrary to this standard, Beverley’s motions merely
took umbrage with the court’s ruling and rehashed old
arguments. They did not demonstrate that there was a
disregard, misapplication or failure to recognize controlling
precedent. As such, they were properly rejected by the District
Court.
Oto, 224 F.3d at 606. As explained in its order denying the petition, the
Court’s application of Seventh Circuit and Wisconsin law to the facts of this
case necessitated dismissal of the matter with prejudice. Upon review, the
Court detects no manifest error in that analysis. King’s motion does not merit
the extraordinary relief afforded by FRCP 59(e), and must therefore be
denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
(Docket #18) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Page 2 of 3
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 17th day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 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?