United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
October 12, 2018, Petitioner filed his motion to alter or
amend a judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e). (ECF No. 76.) Petitioner filed his petition for
habeas corpus relief in this matter on August 6,
1999. (ECF No. 1.) The petition was denied and dismissed on
July 25, 2000, (ECF No. 21) and on August 17, 2002, the Third
Circuit affirmed that decision. Next, on December 8, 2002,
the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Turner v. Shannon, 537 U.S. 1073 (2002).
filed his first Rule 60(b) motion on December 11, 2003. (ECF
No. 31.) This Court denied that motion on August 9, 2004.
(ECF No. 34.) Petitioner filed his second Rule 60(b) motion
on May 30, 2006. (ECF No. 43.) His second Rule 60(b) motion
was denied on June 12, 2006. (ECF No. 44). Petitioner's
third Rule 60(b) motion was filed and denied on May 30, 2006,
and June 12, 2006, respectively. (ECF Nos. 43, 44.) The
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied
Petitioner's request to file a second or successive
petition for habeas corpus relief on May 28, 2010.
(ECF No. 56.) On June 27, 2013, Petitioner filed his fourth
motion for Rule 60(b) relief. (ECF No. 58.) This Court denied
that motion on March 28, 2014. (ECF No. 61). Petitioner
subsequently filed a motion for relief pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) on April 7, 2014, (ECF No. 62),
which was denied on March 12, 2015. (ECF No. 71.) Petitioner
then filed his fifth motion for relief from judgment pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) on April 2,
2018. (ECF No. 71.) This Court denied that motion on October
12, 2018. (ECF No. 77.)
it is important to note that the instant motion is a motion
under rule 59(e), not a motion under rule 60(b). Rule 59(e)
provides that a “motion to alter or amend a judgment
must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the
judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Conversely, Rule 60(b)
allows for the filing of a motion for relief from “a
final judgment, order or proceeding” for certain
reasons, and must be filed “within a reasonable
time.” Fed.R.Civ. P. 60. “Although motions for
reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e)
and 60(b) serve similar functions, each has a particular
purpose. Rule 60(b) provides six bases for reconsideration,
including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect as alleged by [movant]. In contrast, Rule 59(e)
permits the filing of a motion to alter or amend a judgment.
A motion under Rule 59(e) is a device to relitigate the
original issue decided by the district court and used to
allege legal error.” Stroud v. Boorstein, 2014
WL 2957708, at * 2 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2014); citing
United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 288 (3d
Rule 59(e) allows the district court a very limited
timeframe, before the time to appeal the judgment expires, to
correct any mistakes the court may have made in rendering the
judgment. See Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 414
(3d Cir. 2011). The judgment at issue here is the order dated
July 25, 2000, that adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation as to Petitioner's habeas petition.
Petitioner's time to file a 59(e) motion as to his
judgment in this matter has long since passed. Over the
years, Petitioner has appealed his judgment and filed
numerous 60(b) motions, but he cannot be granted relief under
Rule 59(e) now, over nineteen years after the judgment became
even if we would give Petitioner the benefit of the doubt and
treat his motion as timely, it must nevertheless be denied.
Petitioner argues that this court has misinterpreted
Satterfield v. District Attorney of Philadelphia,
872 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2017) on the issue of actual innocence
and failed to address Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759
(2017) in deciding his motion for 60(b) relief.
motion filed under Rule 59(e) is treated as a motion for
reconsideration. See Barner v. Williamson, 461
Fed.Appx. 92, 97 (3d Cir.2012); Peterson v. Brooks,
2008 WL 4072700, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Aug.29, 2008). Three
situations justify granting a motion for reconsideration
under Rule 59(e): (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not
available when the court issued the judgment; or (3) the need
to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
“manifest injustice.” Max's Seafood Cafe
v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.1999).
“Because federal courts have a strong interest in the
finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be
granted sparingly.” Cont'l Cas. Co. v.
Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F.Supp. 937, 943 (E.D.Pa.
March 27, 1995).
argument fails when analyzed under any of the three
situations in which reconsideration may be granted. He is not
arguing an intervening change in controlling law, nor is he
claiming the availability of new evidence. He seems to be
arguing that the Court committed an error of law in its
analysis of his 60(b) motion. This argument is incorrect, as
the Court correctly and thoroughly analyzed Petitioner's
claim under Satterfield in its opinion. Further, the
Court took all relevant caselaw into consideration when
denying Petitioner's 60(b) motion, including Buck v.
Davis. The Court notes that the mere fact that
Petitioner disagrees with our resolution of the legal issue
contained in his habeas petition is not a clear error of law
that would entitle him to reconsideration. See Reich v.
Compton, 834 F.Supp. 753, 755 (E.D. Pa. 1993)
(citing Dodge v. Susquehanna Univ., 796 F.Supp. 829,
830 (M.D. Pa. June 2, 1992) (‘[A]ny litigant
considering bringing a motion to reconsider based upon ...
[clear error and manifest injustice] should evaluate whether
what may seem to be a clear error of law is in fact simply a
disagreement between the Court and the litigant.').
as discussed above, there is no reason to disturb this
Court's judgment of July 25, 2000, in which the petition
for habeas corpus relief filed in this matter was
denied and dismissed. A certificate of appealability will not
issue because reasonable jurists would not debate the