Cook v. United States of America

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 11/29/2018 DENYING 18 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Anthony D. Cook at Milan FCI) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ANTHONY D. COOK,

v.

Petitioner,

Case No. 17-CV-1459-JPS-JPS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

ORDER

On October 29, 2018, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to vacate
his conviction and dismissed this action with prejudice. (Docket #16 and
#17). On November 26, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
of that decision. (Docket #18). The motion cites no legal grounds for
reconsideration, but only two could apply. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
(“FRCP”) 59(e) allows for reconsideration of a judgment “only where the
movant clearly establishes: (1) that the court committed a manifest error of
law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of
judgment.” Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 953 (7th Cir. 2013)
(quotation omitted). FRCP 59(e) “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.” Bordelon v. Chi.
Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000).
FRCP 60(b) also offers relief from a court’s orders or judgments if a
party can show “the narrow grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, voidness, or ‘any other
reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.’” Tylon v. City
of Chi., 97 F. App’x 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting FRCP 60(b)(6)). Such

relief “is an extraordinary remedy and is granted only in exceptional
circumstances.” Harrington v. City of Chi., 443 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006).
Simply asserting “that the . . . court’s underlying judgment was wrong . . .
is an impermissible use of Rule 60(b).” Tylon, 97 F. App’x at 681.
Petitioner’s motion does precisely that. He presents arguments that
he could have or should have offered in the briefing on the motion to vacate
his conviction. These are not the proper subject of a motion for
reconsideration. Because he has not shown entitlement to reconsideration
under either Rule, Petitioner’s motion will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
(Docket #18) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 29th day of November, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2