Collazo-Santiago v. USA

Filing 15

ORDER that Defendant Giovanni Collazo-Santiago's motions to alter or amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (dkts. ## 11 , 13 ) are DENIED. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/30/15. (jls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OPINION AND ORDER

v.

12-cr-136-wmc
13-cv-814-wmc

GIOVANNI COLLAZO-SANTIAGO

On June 10, 2015, the court denied Defendant Giovanni Collazo-Santiago’s
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. (Dkt. #9.)
He has now filed a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

As

Collazo-Santiago has failed to identify either a manifest error of law or nearly-discovered
evidence, his motion will be denied.
BACKGROUND
On October 11, 2012, Collazo-Santiago pled guilty to charges of (1) unlawful
possession of firearms by a previously convicted felon, and (2) possession with intent to
distribute a mixture or substance containing cocaine.

On January 7, 2013, the court

originally sentenced Collazo-Santiago to concurrent terms of 90 months. Both sentences
were subsequently reduced consistent with the 2014 Amendments to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), resulting in amended sentences to
concurrent terms of 78 months.
Collazo-Santiago filed his § 2255 motion on November 18, 2013, claiming
entitlement to relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

In particular,

Collazo-Santiago maintained that his counsel was deficient in failing to file a motion to

1

suppress certain evidence seized by law enforcement in violation of the Fourth
Amendment, which was then wrongly used against him. Collazo-Santiago filed a motion
to supplement in December of 2013 and a motion for a speedy adjudication of his § 2255
motion on July 22, 2014.
On June 10, 2015, this court denied petitioner’s § 2255 motion for two, distinct

reasons.1 First, Collazo-Santiago entered an unconditional guilty plea, and failed to
demonstrate that his plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
Second, because Collazo-Santiago is serving an identical and concurrent 78-month
sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and did not challenge the validity
of that conviction, the concurrent-sentence doctrine constituted independent grounds
to deny the § 2255 motion. For the same reasons, the court denied him a certificate
of appealability.

Collazo-Santiago filed his Rule 59(e) motion on June 17 and a

supplement to that motion on June 19.
OPINION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) “enables the court to correct its own
errors and thus avoid unnecessary appellate procedures.”

Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co. of

Am., 683 F.3d 805, 813 (7th Cir. 2012). To prevail on a motion under Rule 59(e),
the moving party must identify an error of law that merits reconsideration of the
judgment. See Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir. 2008); Sigsworth v. City

On May 28, 2015, Collazo-Santiago filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals, which was docketed on June 9, 2015, but mooted by this court’s
decision on the merits.
1

2

of Aurora, Ill., 487 F.3d 506, 511-12 (7th Cir. 2007). A Rule 59(e) motion is not
intended as a vehicle to relitigate matters already disposed of or to raise novel
theories. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986).
As such, a Rule 59(e) movant “must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or
must present newly discovered evidence.” Id.

In this context, a “manifest error”

means “wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling
precedent.” Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000).
Collazo-Santiago has neither pointed to an error of law in the court’s opinion, nor
presented new evidence to support his § 2255 motion. Instead, he highlights the delay in
the court’s order denying his motion, reargues the claimed failures of his trial attorney to
file an appeal and make certain arguments related to his innocence, and claims that his
plea agreement did not waive his non-jurisdictional rights or his ineffective assistance of
counsel claims.2
Tellingly, none of these arguments point to an error with respect to either ground
upon which the court denied his motion.

Although he includes vague ineffective

assistance of counsel arguments, Collazo-Santiago presents no applicable law or evidence
undermining the court’s conclusions that his plea was voluntary and that he received
effective assistance of counsel during the plea process. See Koons v. United States, 639 F.3d
348, 350-51 (7th Cir. 2011); Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56 (1985).

Even more

In its June 10, 2015, order, the court incorrectly stated that he expressly waived all
non-jurisdictional defects. While an overstatement, see U.S. v. Collazo-Santiago, 12-cr-41-wmc
(dkt. #27), this error had no bearing on the court’s denial of relief under § 2255.
2

3

definitive, Collazo Santiago makes no attempt to counter the court’s conclusion that the
concurrent sentence doctrine moots his § 2255 motion. See Ryan v. United States, 688
F.3d 845, 849 (7th Cir. 2012).
While Collazo-Santiago’s arguments are groundless, the court readily acknowledges
its own failure to address his motion sooner, regardless of a heavy docket and short-term
triage decisions. However, Collazo-Santiago’s filings that called the delay to the court’s
attention had no impact on the result of his § 2255 motion. In denying him relief, the
court carefully considered Collazo-Santiago’s arguments and concluded that he was not
entitled to the extraordinary relief that § 2255 provides.

Accordingly, his Rule 59(e)

motion will be denied.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Giovanni Collazo-Santiago’s motions to alter or
amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (dkts. ##11, 13) are DENIED.
Dated this 30th day of June, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

4