United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
November 3, 2004.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. JAMES LEO EDWARDS, Petitioner,
KENNETH R. BRILEY, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge
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.
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).
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 Co., 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).
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
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.