United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
March 25, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
JOHN A. GIBNEY, District Judge.
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on July 2, 1999, the Court denied on the merits a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Elan Lewis. On July 19, 2013, the Court received a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) ("Rule 59(e) Mot., " ECF No. 205.) Lewis seeks reconsideration of the Court's June 26, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing his "Motion for Leave to File Relation Back Amendment' and/or Supplemental Pleading'" (ECF No. 199) as a successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
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)). Lewis fails to demonstrate any basis for granting relief under Rule 59(e). Instead, Lewis argues that the Court erred in construing his "Motion for Leave to File Relation Back Amendment' and/or Supplemental Pleading'" as a successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and attempts to relitigate that motion. 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, '" (quotin 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995))). Accordingly, Lewis's Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 205) 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 encouragemtnt to proceed further.'" Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle , 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). Lewis has not satisfied this standard. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will be DENIED.
An appropriate Order will accopany this Memorandum Opinion.