Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

United States v. Jackson

United States District Court, Fourth Circuit

January 28, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MICHAEL JACKSON.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOHN A. GIBNEY, Jr., District Judge.

By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on July 2, 1999, the Court denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion from Michael Jackson. Thereafter, on July 20, 1999, the Court denied a motion for reconsideration from Jackson.[1] On June 7, 2013, the Court received a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from Jackson. ("Rule 60(b) Motion, " ECF No. 175.) Jackson sought relief under Rule 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6).[2] (Rule 60(b) Mot. 6.) By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on October 11, 2013, the Court denied Jackson's Rule 60(b) Motion because he failed to file the motion in a timely fashion. On November 7, 2013, the Court received Jackson's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) ("Rule 59(e) Motion").[3] For the reasons set forth below, the Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 179) will be denied.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognizes three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): "(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) (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., 771 F.Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991); Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D.Miss. 1990)). Jackson fails to demonstrate any basis for granting relief under Rule 59(e). Instead, Jackson improperly raises the new argument that his Rule 60(b) Motion was timely as one seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(4).[4] See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (noting that 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.'" (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995))). Accordingly, Jackson's Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 179) will be denied.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A COA will not issue unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). Jackson fails to meet this standard. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED.

An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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