United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL M. MIHM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court are Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider
(ECF No. 14) and Motion to Amend (ECF No. 15). For the
reasons stated herein, Petitioner's Motions are DENIED.
16, 2018, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, outlining one ground for relief. (ECF
No. 1.) On August 23, 2018, his petition was reassigned to
this Court. (Text Order 08/23/2018.) On November 28, 2018,
the Government filed its response (ECF No. 5), along with a
sealed copy of Petitioner's presentence investigation
report (ECF No. 7). On January 11, 2019, Petitioner filed his
traverse (ECF No. 11), as well as a motion to amend his
petition (ECF No. 10). On April 30, 2019, the Court entered
its memorandum opinion and order, granting Petitioner's
motion to amend and denying his petition. (ECF No. 12.) On
May 1, 2019, the Court entered judgment dismissing
Petitioner's claims. (ECF No. 13.) On May 30, 2019,
Petitioner filed a Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 14), and
twenty-one days later, he filed a Motion to Amend (ECF No.
15). This Order follows.
timely motion under 59(e) is effectively a motion for
reconsideration. “Motions for reconsideration 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 Industries, 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)). “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.'” Oto v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir.
2000) (quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F.Supp. 1063,
1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997)). It is not appropriate to argue
matters that could have been raised in prior motions or to
rehash previously rejected arguments in a motion to
reconsider. Caisse Nationale, 90 F.3d at 1270.
Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner argues the Court erred
by: (1) citing Woods v. Wilson, No. 15-623, 2015 WL
2454066, at *5 (D. Minn. May 22, 2015), to support its
assertion that the Eighth Circuit has failed to recognize
Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014), as
establishing a “new rule” of law for purposes of
invoking the savings clause of § 2255(e); and (2)
improperly concluding that a “jury instruction for
aiding and abetting the use of a firearm would have had to
include an element or language referencing the
defendant's ‘purposeful attitude' or
‘affirmative participation' of the use of the
firearm in order to be valid, ” without giving
Petitioner adequate notice and opportunity to address its
conclusion. (ECF No. 14 at 1.) Petitioner does not introduce
any new evidence in his Motion, so the Court limits its
review to correcting any manifest errors of law or fact.
Because the Court finds none, it DENIES Petitioner's
April 30, 2019, Order, the Court observed that the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals has failed to recognize the Supreme
Court's decision in Rosemond as establishing a
“new rule” under the savings clause of §
2255. (ECF No. 12 at 9.) In support of its observation, the
Court cited several district court decisions that came to the
same conclusion. Id. Petitioner argues that the
Court's reliance on Woods v. Wilson as
supporting caselaw for its proposition was in error, as
Woods is a case in which the substantive law of the
Seventh Circuit should have applied, as opposed to the
substantive law of the Eighth. Petitioner's argument,
however, fails to alter the Court's determination that
the Eighth Circuit has declined to recognize
Rosemond as establishing a new rule, and therefore,
fails to demonstrate this Court made a manifest error of law.
Court noted in its Order, three cases supported its
conclusion that Rosemond failed to establish a new
rule. The case on which Petitioner argues the Court relied in
error-Woods- reiterated that a petitioner (convicted
in the Eastern District of Wisconsin) could not proceed under
the savings clause of § 2255 because the holding in
Rosemond did not represent a new rule of law.
Woods, 2015 WL 2454066, at *5. The implication in
Woods was that the Rosemond Court itself
recognized that its holding failed to establish a new rule.
Id. As such, it is of no consequence, and certainly
fails to rise to the level of a manifest error of law, that
Woods interpreted a Supreme Court case to come to
its conclusion. Finally, Petitioner fails to provide any
supporting caselaw, Eighth Circuit or otherwise, that
suggests Rosemond established a new rule which
entitles him to relief. Accordingly, Petitioner's first
ground for reconsideration is DENIED.
next argues it was improper for the Court to rule on his
§ 2241 petition, using other grounds, without first
giving the Parties notice and a reasonable time to respond.
In support of his argument, Reaves cites Rule 56(f)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states,
“[a]fter giving notice and a reasonable time to
respond, the court may: (2) grant the motion on grounds not
raised by a party[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f)(2). In its
Response, the Government argued that Petitioner was
procedurally barred from bringing his petition based on
Rosemond. (ECF No. 5 at 6-10.) The Court's
analysis came to the same conclusion. (ECF No. 12 at 7-10.)
Rule of Civil Procedure 56 guides motions for summary
judgment. Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corporation,
24 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 1994). 28 U.S.C. § 2241 guides
petitions for habeas corpus. The two avenues for relief rely
on separate standards which are not interchangeable. It is of
no consequence if the Court denies, on a second ground, a
petition for habeas corpus based on arguments not raised by
the Parties. Petitioner has failed to provide any relevant
caselaw that states otherwise. As such, Petitioner's
second argument fails to demonstrate a manifest error of law,
and his Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED in its entirety.
PETITIONER'S MOTION TO AMEND
20, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), asserting he wished to include
an additional argument (that the Court improperly failed to
consider jury instructions in its denial of his § 2241
petition) in his Motion to ...