Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bellamy v. Ramirez

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

May 2, 2018

MONTI N. BELLAMY, Petitioner,
v.
GIO RAMIREZ, Warden of FCI-Williamsburg, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S RULE 59(e) MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND

          MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Pending 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.

         II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         United 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.

         Petitioner 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.

         III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

         There 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).

         "A 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.

         Beaudettv. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

         IV. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

         In 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 Report. Id.

         V. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

         Petitioner's 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 section ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.