IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
January 15, 2009
WILLIE E. BOYD, PETITIONER,
A.W. SHERROD, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert U. S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motion to reconsider (Doc. 6). Specifically, Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum and Order dismissing his § 2241 habeas petition pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Technically, a motion under Rule 59(e) is not a motion for reconsideration, but a motion to alter or amend judgment.
A motion to alter or amend judgment filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) may only be granted if a movant shows there was mistake of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered previously. Matter of Prince, 85 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 1996), reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en banc denied, cert. denied 117 S.Ct. 608; Deutsch v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 983 F.2d 741 (7th Cir. 1993).
Upon review of the record, the Court remains persuaded that its ruling dismissing Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 22441 was correct. Relief under § 2241 is not available to Petitioner because he has not established that relief under § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test his claim that his 1967 for armed robbery should not have counted toward his status as an armed career offender under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Therefore, the instant motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.