United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
Michael F. Urbanski Chief United States District Judge.
September 27, 2018, the court denied Paduano's Writ of
Habeas Corpus and declined to issue a certificate of
appealability. Paduano v. Clarke, No. 7:17CV00540,
2018 WL 4655758 (W.D. Va. Sept. 27, 2018). Paduano, a
Virginia inmate proceeding by counsel, filed a motion to
alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons that
follow, the motion is DENIED.
may amend or alter a judgment 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." Hutchison v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076,
1081 (4th Cir. 1993). "Importantly, however, a Rule
59(e) motion for reconsideration may not be used to
'reargue the facts and law originally argued in the
parties' briefs.'" Projects Mgmt. Co. v.
DynCorp Int'l. L.L.C.. 17 F.Supp.3d 539, 541 (E.D.
Va. 2014) (quoting United States v. Smithfield
Foods. 969 F.Supp. 975, 977 (E.D. Va. 1997)). This
standard is narrowly construed, as a Rule 59(e) motion is
"'an extraordinary remedy which should be used
sparingly.'" Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire
Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting
11 Wright et al, Federal Practice and Procedure
§ 2810.1, at 124 (2d ed. 1995)); see Durkin v.
Taylor, 444 F.Supp. 879, 889 (E.D. Va. 1977)
("Whatever may be the purpose of Rule 59(e) it should
not be supposed that it is intended to give an unhappy
litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.").
motion for reconsideration, Paduano raises six court errors:
(1) the court's finding of procedural default as to
portions of Claim 6 and Claims 8 and 9 was erroneous;
(2) the court ignored Paduano's allegations and relied on
biased evidence in improperly dismissing Claim 1;
(3) the court improperly dismissed Claim 2 by relying on
biased, uncorroborated testimony and speculation;
(4) the court improperly dismissed Claim 4 by not concluding
that Paduano's psychiatric issues would have resulted in
suppression of his statements and in a lesser sentence;
(5) the court improperly dismissed Claims 4, 5, and 6 without
considering all of the evidence;
(6) the court erred in dismissing Claim 7 because the date of
the sexual assault of T.H. was critical to Paduano's
Id. at 7-20.
motion mostly presents issues that the court already ruled
upon, either expressly or by reasonable implication, when the
court denied petitioner's habeas application and declined
to issue a certificate of appealability. Nevertheless, he
fails to show an intervening change in controlling law, new
evidence not available at trial, a clear error of law, or
manifest injustice. Even though the majority of ...