Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jefferson v. U.S., 8:09-cr-484-T-33MAP. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20140923a43 Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Jefferson's Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of this Court's Order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 2255 Motion To Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, filed on September 15, 2014. (Doc. # 19). DISCUSSION A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend is an extraordinary request seeking a drastic remedy; once issues have been carefully considered and determined, the po
More

ORDER

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on Jefferson's Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of this Court's Order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion To Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, filed on September 15, 2014. (Doc. # 19).

DISCUSSION

A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend is an extraordinary request seeking a drastic remedy; once issues have been carefully considered and determined, the power to reconsider "must of necessity be used sparingly." Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport Auth., 914 F.Supp. 1072 (M.D. Fla. 1993); see Booker v. Singletary, 90 F.3d 440 (11th Cir. 1996). The relief sought should only be granted where there has been a change in the legal or factual underpinnings for the decision. Case law is clear in establishing that such a motion "is discretionary and need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

These conditions for reconsideration have not been satisfied in this case. Rather than offering new facts or law which could not have been presented earlier, Jefferson has merely rehashed his prior arguments, expressing disagreement with this Court's conclusions and suggesting that this Court overlooked or misapprehended his claims. Such relitigation is not appropriate in a postjudgment motion. Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp., 885 F.2d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

Jefferson's Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 59(e) (Doc. # 19) is denied.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS DENIED

The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because Jefferson has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Nor will the Court authorize Jefferson to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis because such an appeal would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Jefferson shall be required to pay the full amount of the appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1) and (2).

DONE and ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer