United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
MONTI N. BELLAMY, Petitioner,
GIO RAMIREZ, Warden of FCI-Williamsburg, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S
RULE 59(e) MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Petitioner Monti N. Bellamy's
(Petitioner) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) Motion to
Alter or Amend the Court's Order, ECF No. 17, adopting
the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 20. Petitioner is proceeding pro
se. The Court has jurisdiction over the matter under 28
U.S.C. §1331. Having carefully considered the motion,
the record, and the applicable law, it is the judgment of the
Court Petitioner's motion will be denied.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker issued a Report
suggesting Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (section 2241) be
summarily dismissed without prejudice and without requiring
Respondent to file a return. ECF No. 9. The Report also
recommended a certificate of appealability be denied.
Id. Petitioner timely filed objections. ECF No. 15.
On March 28, 2018, this Court entered an Order overruling
Petitioner's objections, adopting the Report, dismissing
Petitioner's section 2241 petition without prejudice and
without requiring Respondent to file a return, and denying a
certificate of appealability. ECF No. 17.
timely filed his motion under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend
the Court's Order adopting the Report. ECF No. 20. The
Court is now prepared to discuss the merits of the motion.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
are only three limited bases for a district court to grant a
Rule 59(e) motion: "(1) to accommodate an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence
not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of
law or prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson v.
Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir.1993). A Rule 59(e)
motion "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to
raise arguments or present evidence that could have been
raised prior to the entry of judgment." Exxon
Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Further, "mere
disagreement [with a district court's ruling] does not
support a Rule 59(e) motion." Hutchinson, 994
F.2d at 1082 (citing Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau
Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D.Miss. 1990)). "In
general[, ] reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is
an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly."
Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Natl Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d
396, 403 (4th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).
document filed pro se is 'to be liberally
construed.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976)). Courts are not, however, required to
"conjure up questions never squarely presented to
them" or seek out arguments for a party.
City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Petitioner's motion, he asks the Court to reconsider its
Order adopting the Report in light of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's recent decision in
United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir.
2018). ECF No. 20. Petitioner avers Wheeler extends
the reach of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255's (section 2255)
savings clause to defendants challenging their sentences, and
the Court should thus reconsider its Order adopting the
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
motion fails to allege any evidence is newly available. The
motion also neglects to claim clear error of law or manifest
injustice. Thus, the motion is appropriately viewed as
arguing for the Court to amend its previous Order based upon
an intervening change in law. Although Petitioner is correct
the Fourth Circuit recently extended the applicability of