Filed: May 23, 2014
Latest Update: May 23, 2014
Summary: ORDER STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge. Jeremiah L. Carson moves (Doc. 39) under Rule 59(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 38), entered on March 31, 2014, denying as time-barred Carson's Section 2255 motion to vacate. Carson challenges the applicability of Natson v. United States, 494 Fed. App'x 3 (11th Cir. 2012) 1 and repeats the arguments in his motion to vacate. 2 "The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidenc
Summary: ORDER STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge. Jeremiah L. Carson moves (Doc. 39) under Rule 59(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 38), entered on March 31, 2014, denying as time-barred Carson's Section 2255 motion to vacate. Carson challenges the applicability of Natson v. United States, 494 Fed. App'x 3 (11th Cir. 2012) 1 and repeats the arguments in his motion to vacate. 2 "The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidence..
More
ORDER
STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge.
Jeremiah L. Carson moves (Doc. 39) under Rule 59(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 38), entered on March 31, 2014, denying as time-barred Carson's Section 2255 motion to vacate. Carson challenges the applicability of Natson v. United States, 494 Fed. App'x 3 (11th Cir. 2012)1 and repeats the arguments in his motion to vacate.2
"The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact." Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999)). The decision to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) "is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge." Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., 763 F.2d 1237, 1238-39 (11th Cir. 1985). A party seeking reconsideration must "set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision." Cover v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 148 F.R.D. 294, 294 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
The decision to alter or amend a judgment is an "extraordinary remedy." Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994). "[A] Rule 59(e) motion [cannot be used] to re-litigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d at 1343 (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)). Carson's Rule 59(e) motion repeats the arguments presented in his Section 2255 motion to vacate. Carson neither asserts an intervening change in controlling law nor demonstrates a manifest error of law or fact resulting from the denial of his Section 2255 motion. See Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d at 1343. Accordingly, Carson's Rule 59(e) motion (Doc. 39) is DENIED.
ORDERED.
