Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. EX REL. EDWARDS v. BRILEY

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division


November 3, 2004.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. JAMES LEO EDWARDS, Petitioner,
v.
KENNETH R. BRILEY, Defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on Petitioner James Edwards' ("Petitioner") motion for reconsideration. For the reasons stated below, we deny Petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

BACKGROUND

  Petitioner initially filed two separate petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. U.S. ex rel. Edwards v. Briley, (N.D. Ill. 2002) (No. 02 C 1659); U.S. ex rel. Edwards v. Briley, (N.D. Ill. 2002) (No. 02 C 1660). On March 30, 2004, in a memorandum opinion, we denied Petitioner's petitions for writ of habeas corpus. U.S. ex rel. Edwards v. Briley, 2004 WL 723837 (N.D.Ill. 2004).

  LEGAL STANDARD

  Rule 59(e) permits parties to file, within ten days of the entry of a judgment, a motion to alter or amend the judgment. Fed.R.Civ. P. 59(e). Rule 59(e) motions do not give a party the opportunity to rehash old arguments or to present new arguments "that could and should have been presented to the district court prior to the judgment." Moro v. Shell Oil Corp., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing LB Credit Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir. 1995)). Rather, a Rule 59(e) motion "must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence" in order to be successful. LB Credit Corp., 49 F.3d at 1267 (quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)). The decision of whether to grant or deny a Rule 59(e) motion "is entrusted to the sound judgment of the district court. . . ." In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996).

  DISCUSSION

  This court denied Petitioner's petitions for writ of habeas corpus on March 30, 2004. Although Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was not filed until April 14, 2004, by operation of the "mailbox rule", we treat the motion as filed on April 12, 2004, the date when Petitioner delivered it to the proper prison authorities for mailing. See Edwards v. U.S., 266 F.3d 756, 758 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding that the "mailbox rule applies to motions filed pursuant to Rule 59(e)."). Accordingly, for purposes of our review, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration will be considered timely and construed under the standard set forth in Fed.R. Civ. P. 59(e).

  In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner has simply revisited each of his habeas claims and attempted to reargue the merits of those claims. Petitioner has failed to present any "newly discovered evidence" in support of his motion, nor has Petitioner established that a "manifest error of law" occurred. LB Credit Corp., 49 F.3d at 1267. Additionally, we note that although Petitioner has attempted to rephrase and add certain habeas claim arguments within his motion for reconsideration, those arguments "should have been presented to the district court prior to the judgment." Moro, 91 F.3d at 876 (citing LB Credit Corp., 49 F.3d at 1267. Inasmuch as Petitioner's motion presents no newly discovered evidence and merely reargues the habeas claims that we have already reviewed, we find that Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is without merit. Therefore, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is denied. CONCLUSION

  Based on the foregoing, we deny Petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

20041103

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.