United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION
Joseph United States Magistrate Judge.
Simpson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which
this Court dismissed on September 23, 2019. (Docket # 53.)
Judgment was entered the same day. (Docket # 54.) On October
15, 2019, Simpson filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. (Docket #
58.) Presently before me is Simpson's motion for
reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e).
(Docket # 55.)
Simpson's appeal has been docketed with the Seventh
Circuit, I no longer have jurisdiction over this case.
Boyko v. Anderson, 185 F.3d 672, 674 (7th Cir.
1999). Rule 57 of the Circuit Rules of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit states that if,
while an appeal is pending, a party files a motion under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a) or 60(b) or “any other rule that
permits the modification of a final judgment, ” that
party should ask the district court whether it is inclined to
grant the motion. If the district court is inclined to grant
the motion, the Seventh Circuit will remand the case to the
district court to modify the judgment.
court is not inclined to grant Simpson's motion. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) allows a party to move the
court for reconsideration of a judgment within 28 days
following the entry of the judgment. A motion for
reconsideration serves a very limited purpose in federal
civil litigation; it should be used only “to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal &
Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987) (quoting
Keene Corp. v. Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co., 561
F.Supp. 656 (N.D. Ill. 1982), aff'd 736 F.2d 388
(7th Cir. 1984)). “A ‘manifest error' is not
demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. It is
the ‘wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to
recognize controlling precedent.'” Oto v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir.
2000) (quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F.Supp. 1063,
1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997)). Apart from manifest errors of law,
“reconsideration is not for rehashing previously
rejected arguments.” Caisse Nationale de Credit
Agricole v. CBI Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270
(7th Cir. 1996). Whether to grant a motion for
reconsideration “is left to the discretion of the
district court.” Id.
motion for reconsideration does not present any newly
discovered evidence or present a manifest error of law or
fact; rather, it generally repeats his legal and factual
arguments about the state court's waiver of his right to
a speedy trial and ineffective assistance of counsel. (Docket
# 55 at 1-5.) While Simpson may disagree with the Court's
decision, a motion for reconsideration is not for rehashing
previously unsuccessful arguments. That is the purpose of
motion also points out several instances within the
Court's order that the Court “did not compose its
own judgment on the facts.” (Docket # 55 at 3-5).
Simpson misinterprets the law. Under the AEDPA, with respect
to claims adjudicated on the merits in state court, a federal
court can grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus
“only if the state court's decision was . . . based
on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in state court.” Promotor v.
Pollard, 628 F.3d 878, 888 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)); see also White v. Woodall,
134 S.Ct. 1697, 1702 (2014). For purposes of federal habeas
review, state-court factual determinations are entitled to
“substantial deference.” Brumfield v.
Cain, 135 S.Ct. 2269, 2277 (2015). The district court is
not tasked to make independent factual determinations at this
juncture of federal habeas review; instead, the Court's
job is to determine if the Wisconsin Court of Appeal's
factual determinations were unreasonable. In its decision
denying habeas relief, this Court found that the Wisconsin
Court of Appeals' determination was not unreasonable with
respect to any of Simpson's adjudicated claims. (Docket #
53 at 6-17). That is all that is required.
Simpson is not entitled to reconsideration under Rule 59(e),
I will deny Simpson's motion.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitioner's
Motion for ...