Shuttlesworth, Jermaine v. Respondent

Filing 34

Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Docket Sheet, Orders and Judgment to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re 31 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Order, 1/4/17, # 2 Judgment, 11/10/16, # 3 Order, 11/10/16, # 4 Docket sheet) (jef),(ps)

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

JERMAINE W. SHUTTLESWORTH,

v.

Petitioner,

ORDER
14-cv-567-jdp

REED RICHARDSON,
Respondent.

Pro se petitioner Jermaine W. Shuttlesworth filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state court convictions for second-degree
sexual assault of a child and attempted second-degree sexual assault of a child. Dkt. 1. I
denied the petition and dismissed the case after concluding that (1) there was no reason to
stay the case while Shuttlesworth exhausted state-court remedies concerning a newly found
SANE report; and (2) Shuttlesworth failed to show that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals
unreasonably applied federal law regarding his ineffective assistance of counsel or due process
claims. Dkt. 24. Shuttlesworth now moves to alter or amend the judgment under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Dkt. 26.
To prevail on a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59, a petitioner must present
newly discovered material evidence or establish a manifest error of law or fact. Oto v. Metro.
Life Ins. Co, 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000). “Rule 59 is not a vehicle for rearguing
previously rejected motions . . . .” Id. Here, Shuttlesworth contends that I erred in denying
his petition because I failed to consider how the newly found SANE report could have been
used by Shuttlesworth’s counsel to impeach the victim’s sworn statements.

In my order denying Shuttlesworth’s petition, I considered the SANE report for the
limited purpose of determining whether to stay Shuttlesworth’s petition to allow him to
exhaust his state court remedies concerning the new evidence and associated claim under
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), because the SANE report was not in the record
before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals when it considered Shuttlesworth’s claims. I
determined that Shuttlesworth’s Brady claim based on the SANE report was plainly meritless,
so there was no reason to stay the case to allow him to pursue the claim in the Wisconsin
state courts. In making this determination, I noted that Shuttlesworth pleaded guilty and
that “the Due Process Clause does not require the government to disclose impeachment
information before the entry of a criminal defendant’s guilty plea.” Dkt. 24, at 9 (citing
United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 630 (2002)).
I agree with Shuttlesworth that his trial counsel could have used the SANE report, if
the state had given it to him, to impeach the victim, but this simply does not matter. In Ruiz,
the United States Supreme Court made clear that Shuttlesworth’s allegation that the state
withheld impeachment evidence from him, causing him to plead guilty, does not present a
violation of a federal constitutional right.
Without opining on the merits of such a claim, I note that Shuttlesworth may bring a
state law claim in Wisconsin state court under Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1)(h) (requiring a district
attorney to disclose any exculpatory evidence to a defendant a reasonable time before trial).
See State v. Harris, 2004 WI 64, ¶¶ 24-40, 272 Wis. 2d 80, 680 N.W.2d 737 (holding that
§ 971.23(1)(h) required the disclosure of impeachment evidence when the defendant entered
a plea within two weeks of trial). But such a claim would not provide a basis for federal
habeas relief, Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (“In conducting habeas review, a

2

federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.”), and so this court cannot stay the remainder of his habeas
petition while Shuttlesworth brings the claim because a state law claim does not present a
potentially meritorious federal constitutional claim. Cunningham v. Conway, 717 F. Supp. 2d
339, 368 (W.D.N.Y. 2010).
I stand on my previous analysis. For these reasons, I will deny Shuttlesworth’s motion.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner Jermaine W. Shuttlesworth’s motion to alter or
amend the judgment, Dkt. 26, is DENIED.
Entered January 4, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3