IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
May 1, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
JAMES E. ROLLINS, SR., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
Before the Court are two pending motions, filed pro se by defendant James E. Rollins, Sr. The first is a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 59 (Doc. 702) regarding the Court's April 15, 2009 Order (Doc. 694) denying Defendant's pro se Motion for New Trial (Doc. 684). Defendant's second filing is a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 59 (Doc. 703) regarding the Court's April 15, 2009 Order (Doc. 697) denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Court to Order Government to Provide Motion (Doc. 695).
Without delving into the substance of either of Defendant's pending Motions, they must be denied for the following reasons. First, as stated by the Court in several of its prior Orders denying other post-trial motions filed by Defendant, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not allow a defendant to file a "motion for reconsideration" of a previous court ruling (even though such procedural vehicle does exist in civil cases). See United States v. Griffin, 84 F.3d 820, 826 n.4 (7th Cir. 1996) ("We are at a loss to understand any basis under federal law or rules of criminal procedure for what is typically described as a "motion to reconsider . . . [t]here is no authority in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for a "motion for reconsideration."). Further, Defendant has filed his pending Motions pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Clearly, however, a party in a criminal case cannot move for relief pursuant to a rule pertaining only to civil litigation. Therefore, the pending Motions are not proper and should be denied for this reason.
Second, although Defendant did not have the opportunity to view the Court's most recent Order issued in this case before mailing his two pending Motions, the Court's April 27, 2009 Order (Doc. 700), which denied as moot Defendant's Motion for Leave to File (Doc. 698) and Motion to Compel (Doc. 699), the Court stated: "Mr. Rollins needs to understand this case is over. This Court does not have jurisdiction in the criminal case to provide him with any relief and the filing of documents in this case needs to cease" (Doc. 700, p. 3). The Court's statement pertains to Defendant's pending Motions.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed herein, Defendant's Motions to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 59 (Docs. 702 & 703) are DENIED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.