United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
ORDER & OPINION
BILLY MCDADE UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on a Motion for Reconsideration
filed by Kendall Roberts. (Doc. 10). For the reasons stated
below, the motion is DENIED.
28, 2017, Petitioner Kendall Roberts filed a Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. (Doc. 1). He argued that under Mathis v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), this Court erred
in determining that Roberts was a career offender within the
meaning of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on prior Illinois drug
convictions and enhancing his 2008 sentence based off that
October 17, 2017, this Court denied Roberts' § 2255
petition as time-barred. (Doc. 8). As noted in the
Court's Order and Opinion, Roberts' ability to file a
timely § 2255 motion expired in 2009. Id. at
3-4 (noting that, pursuant to § 2255(f)(1), a §
2255 motion must be filed within one year of the date the
judgment against the petitioner became final). A § 2255
motion may be timely if it is brought within one year of the
date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by
the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by
the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases
on collateral review. See 28 U.S.C. §
2255(f)(3). However, the Seventh Circuit has explicitly held
that “Mathis has not been declared retroactive
by the Supreme Court-nor is it a new rule of constitutional
law.” Holt v. United States, 843 F.3d 720, 722
(7th Cir. 2016). Thus, Mathis does not trigger a new
one-year period under § 2255(f)(3). Brooks v.
United States, No. 17-2168, 2017 WL 3315266, *3-*4 (C.D.
Ill. Aug. 3, 2017) (noting that several cases have held that
Mathis does not trigger a new one-year period under
§ 2255(f)(3)); Gulley v. United States, No.
17-2122, 2017 WL 2450178, *4 (C.D. Ill. June 6, 2017) (same).
“An independent claim based on Mathis must be
brought, if at all, in a petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2241.” Dawkins v. United States, 829 F.3d 549,
551 (7th Cir. 2016). Roberts' § 2255 motion was
nearly eight years too late.
no reasonable jurists could differ with this Court's
treatment of Roberts' § 2255 petition, the Court
declined to certify any issues for appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Id. at 4-5. Nonetheless,
on November 1, 2017, Roberts filed the instant Motion for
Reconsideration. (Doc. 10).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly contemplate
motions to reconsider. However, the Seventh Circuit has held
that district courts should consider motions challenging the
merits of a district court order under Rule 59(e) or Rule
60(b). United States v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 299, 300
(7th Cir. 1992). Whether the motion falls under Rule 59(e) or
Rule 60(b) turns on the time at which the motion is served:
“[i]f the motion is served within ten days of the
rendition of judgment, the motion falls under Rule 59(e); if
it is served after that time, it falls under Rule
60(b).” Id. (quoting Lavespere v. Niagara
Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th
Cir. 1990)). Roberts' Motion for Reconsideration is
signed October 26, 2017-8 days after this Court entered
judgment denying his § 2255 petition. Thus, the Court
will analyze Roberts' motion under Rule 59(e).
prevail on a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59, the
movant must present either newly discovered evidence or
establish a manifest error of law or fact.” Oto v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir.
2000). “A ‘manifest error' is not
demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. It is
the ‘wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to
recognize controlling precedent.'” Id.
(citing Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F.Supp. 1063, 1069
does not present any newly discovered evidence or establish a
manifest error of law or fact. He again incorrectly argues
that Mathis starts a fresh year for purposes of
§ 2255(f)(3). Seventh Circuit case law holds that it
clearly does not. Holt, 843 F.3d at 722.
Roberts' § 2255 motion is clearly time-barred, and
his motion for reconsideration is dismissed.
reasons stated above, Petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 10) is DENIED.