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.

Hinton v. United States

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


May 2, 2007

DONALD HINTON, PETITIONER/DEFENDANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Donald Hinton's motion for reconsideration of Judge William L. Beatty's order issued October 22, 1997 (Doc. 13) denying Petitioner's motion to vacate, correct, or set aside his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). The basis for Petitioner's motion is that the judgment in this matter is void and therefore he should be granted relief pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)(4).

Motions to reconsider "are left subject to the complete power of the court rendering them," should be granted "as justice requires," FED.R.CIV.P.60 advisory committee's notes, and must be "consonant with equity." John Simmons Co. v. Grier Brothers, 258 U.S. 82, 90-91 (1922). See also 12JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL.,MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 60App.108[2] (3d ed. 2004). Such motions "serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting Keene Corp. v. Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F. Supp. 656, 665 (N.D. Ill. 1982),aff'd, 736 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1984)). "Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion." Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole, 90 F.3d at 1270.

This motion requests reconsideration of an order entered nearly ten years ago. It would be an understatement to say that the motion is untimely. While Petitioner is correct that a motion for reconsideration filed under Rule 60(b)(4) is not subject to the strict one-year time limit, it still must be filed within a "reasonable time." FED.R.CIV.P.60(b). Furthermore, the Court notes that even if Petitioner's motion were timely, it would still fail upon the merits.*fn1 The Court remains unpersuaded by Petitioner's arguments. Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner's motion contains new arguments, those arguments could have been previously asserted and are improper at this juncture. Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole, 90 F.3d at 1270.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion for reconsideration. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 2nd day of May, 2007.

David RHerndon United States District Judge


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.