Herring, Derrick v. Williams

Filing 10

ORDER denying petitioner's 5 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 9/9/2016. (jef)

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

DERRICK HERRING,
Petitioner,
v.

ORDER
16-cv-364-jdp

WILLIAMS,
Respondent.

Pro se petitioner Derrick Herring asks me to reconsider my decision to dismiss his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 3 and Dkt. 5. I
construe plaintiff’s submission as a motion to alter or amend the judgment, pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e).
“To prevail on a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59, the movant must present
either newly discovered 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, petitioner merely restates the claims that he brought in his
petition. Petitioner contends that I did not address his contention that the Controlled
Substances Act violates the Tenth Amendment and infringes on the states’ exclusive
jurisdiction to prosecute drug offenses that occur within a single state. And petitioner
reargues his claim that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment.
Petitioner overlooks the fact that I dismissed his petition primarily because he does
not have a cause of action under § 2241. Dkt. 3, at 2-3 (“Here, petitioner cannot
demonstrate that the first two conditions are present: he has not identified a new statutory
interpretation case (in fact, he primarily relies on cases from more than one hundred years

ago), much less that some new case applies retroactively on collateral review. Petitioner may
not proceed under § 2241, and I must dismiss the petition.”). And regardless, the August 9,
2016, order fully addresses both of petitioner claims. Petitioner does not offer any new
arguments or facts to support those claims, and I stand on my previous analysis. For these
reasons, I will deny his motion.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner Derrick Herring’s motion for reconsideration,
Dkt. 5, is DENIED.
Entered September 9, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2