KIRKSEY v. SAMUELS - Document No. 16

KIRKSEY v. SAMUELS Doc.
16
Case 1:06-cv-00477-RBK Document 16 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 1 of 5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ANTHONY KIRKSEY, :
: Civil Action No. 06-477 (RBK)
Petitioner, :
:
v. : O P I N I O N
:
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, :
:
Respondent. :
APPEARANCES:
Anthony Kirksey, Pro Se John Andrew Ruymann

#13226-039 Assistant U.S. Attorney
F.C.I. Fort Dix 402 East State Street
P.O. Box 7000 Room 430
Fort Dix, NJ 08640 Trenton, NJ 08608
Attorney for Respondent
KUGLER, District Judge
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s Motion to
Alter or Amend Judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Petitioner asks for reconsideration of this Court’s Order of
April 28, 2006, denying Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus
relief. Having considered the motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
78, the Court will deny the motion.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution, Fort Dix, New Jersey. Petitioner was
convicted for drug offenses in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan. On December 6, 2002, he
Dockets.Justia.com
was sentenced by that court to 138 months imprisonment, followed
by an eight-year supervised release term.
In his habeas petition, Petitioner argued that the
supervised release term constituted a multiple punishment in
violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
He argued that Title 18 U.S.C. § 3583, which authorizes
supervised release “as part of the sentence,” cannot be
interpreted to mean “in addition to” the sentence.
This Court held, in an Opinion and Order dated April 28,
2006, that Petitioner’s claims were more appropriately asserted
under § 2255, in a motion to correct, vacate, or set aside his
sentence filed in the sentencing court, granted Respondent’s
motion to dismiss, and dismissed the petition for lack of
jurisdiction.
In this motion, Petitioner argues that the Court failed to
consider his response in opposition to the motion to dismiss and
in support of his various other motions. (Docket entry 14). In
his response to the motion to dismiss, Petitioner had asserted
that because his petition was a “mixed challenge to both the
‘execution of his sentence,’ and the ‘validity of his sentence’”,
he wished to supplement his pleadings. (Docket entry 11-1, p.
3). Petitioner argues in this motion that his request to
supplement was either neglected or refused, causing him “severe
prejudice.” (Docket entry 14, p. 4).
2
DISCUSSION
A. Rule 59(e)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) states: “Any motion
to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed not later than 10
days after entry of the judgment.”1 Generally, there are four
basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: (1)
to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment
was based; (2) to present newly-discovered or previously
unavailable evidence; (3) to prevent manifest injustice; and (4)
an intervening change in prevailing law. See 11 Charles A.
Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995); see also Harsco Corp. v.
Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985)(purpose of motion for
reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or
to present newly discovered evidence), cert. denied, 476 U.S.
1171 (1986). “To support reargument, a moving party must show
that dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law
were overlooked by the court in reaching its prior decision.”
Assisted Living Associates of Moorestown, L.L.C., v. Moorestown
Twp., 996 F. Supp. 409, 442 (D.N.J. 1998). However, mere
disagreement with the district court’s decision is inappropriate
on a motion for reargument, and should be raised through the
1
In the instant case, Petitioner’s motion to amend was
dated May 6, 2006, within the ten-day time limit.
3
appellate process. See id. (citing Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of
America, Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834, 859 n.8 (D.N.J. 1992), aff’d, 37
F.3d 1485 (3d Cir. 1994); G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F. Supp. 274, 275
(D.N.J. 1990)). “The Court will only entertain such a motion
where the overlooked matters, if considered by the Court, might
reasonably have resulted in a different conclusion.” Assisted
Living, 996 F. Supp. at 442. Accordingly, a district court “has
considerable discretion in deciding whether to reopen a case
under Rule 59(e).” Edward H. Bohlin, Co. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6
F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993).
In this case, Petitioner fails to present any new facts in
support of his Motion, nor does he point to any intervening
change in the law governing those claims. This Court has again
reviewed the docket, and notes that Petitioner’s response to the
motion to dismiss was filed on April 11, 2006. The Opinion and
Order granting the motion to dismiss were executed on April 28,
2006. The Opinion states that “[t]he Court has considered all
submissions.” (Docket entry 12, p.2).
Regardless, the Court has again reviewed Petitioner’s
response to the motion to dismiss, filed on April 11, 2006, and
finds that it does not change the disposition of the case.
Although Petitioner states that his Petition presented a “mixed”
challenge, to challenge both the validity and the execution of
his sentence, this Court finds no support to that claim. The
4
Court also notes that Petitioner is free to file another § 2241
habeas petition if he has additional, proper habeas claims which
he wishes to assert. Petitioner is also free to appeal this
Court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Therefore, because nothing Petitioner presents in support of
his motion suggests that the Court has overlooked key evidence or
has made a fundamental error in law, his motion to alter or amend
judgment will be denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner’s motion to
alter or amend the Court’s April 28, 2006 Order is hereby denied.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
S/Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
DATED: September 22, 2006

KIRKSEY v. SAMUELS - Document No. 16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KIRKSEY v. SAMUELS - Document No. 16

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KIRKSEY v. SAMUELS - Document No. 16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KIRKSEY v. SAMUELS Doc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Anthony Kirksey, Pro Se John Andrew Ruymann

KUGLER, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s Motion to

Alter or Amend Judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Petitioner asks for reconsideration of this Court’s Order of

April 28, 2006, denying Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus

relief. Having considered the motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

78, the Court will deny the motion.

Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Federal

Correctional Institution, Fort Dix, New Jersey. Petitioner was

convicted for drug offenses in the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Michigan. On December 6, 2002, he

was sentenced by that court to 138 months imprisonment, followed

by an eight-year supervised release term.

In his habeas petition, Petitioner argued that the

supervised release term constituted a multiple punishment in

violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

He argued that Title 18 U.S.C. § 3583, which authorizes

supervised release “as part of the sentence,” cannot be

interpreted to mean “in addition to” the sentence.

This Court held, in an Opinion and Order dated April 28,

2006, that Petitioner’s claims were more appropriately asserted

under § 2255, in a motion to correct, vacate, or set aside his

sentence filed in the sentencing court, granted Respondent’s

motion to dismiss, and dismissed the petition for lack of

In this motion, Petitioner argues that the Court failed to

consider his response in opposition to the motion to dismiss and

in support of his various other motions. (Docket entry 14). In

his response to the motion to dismiss, Petitioner had asserted

that because his petition was a “mixed challenge to both the

‘execution of his sentence,’ and the ‘validity of his sentence’”,

he wished to supplement his pleadings. (Docket entry 11-1, p.

3). Petitioner argues in this motion that his request to

supplement was either neglected or refused, causing him “severe

prejudice.” (Docket entry 14, p. 4).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) states: “Any motion

to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed not later than 10

days after entry of the judgment.”1 Generally, there are four

to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment

was based; (2) to present newly-discovered or previously

unavailable evidence; (3) to prevent manifest injustice; and (4)

an intervening change in prevailing law. See 11 Charles A.

Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995); see also Harsco Corp. v.

reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or

to present newly discovered evidence), cert. denied, 476 U.S.

1171 (1986). “To support reargument, a moving party must show

that dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law

were overlooked by the court in reaching its prior decision.”

Assisted Living Associates of Moorestown, L.L.C., v. Moorestown

Twp., 996 F. Supp. 409, 442 (D.N.J. 1998). However, mere

disagreement with the district court’s decision is inappropriate

on a motion for reargument, and should be raised through the

appellate process. See id. (citing Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of

(D.N.J. 1990)). “The Court will only entertain such a motion

where the overlooked matters, if considered by the Court, might

reasonably have resulted in a different conclusion.” Assisted

Living, 996 F. Supp. at 442. Accordingly, a district court “has