United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
B. RUSSELL, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter comes before the Court on Marcus Proctor's Motion
for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). [R. 38.] The United States responded, [R.
41]. This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the
reasons stated herein, Proctor's Motion for
Reconsideration, [R. 38], is DENIED.
16, 2017, Proctor filed a Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. [R. 32; R. 36 at 1.] In that motion, Proctor
challenged his classification as a career offender under the
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines based on the Supreme Court's
holding in Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243
(2016). This Court held that Mathis did not create a
new rule of law which applies retroactively to cases on
collateral review. [See R. 36 at 3-4 (collecting
cases).] In that motion, Proctor also cited the Fourth
Circuit's holding in United States v. Simmons,
649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011), in support of the argument that
this Court could not dismiss his motion because “the
government could waive the one-year statute of limitations to
avoid constitutional injustice and/or voiding the plea
agreement.” [R. 36 at 5.] This Court rejected
Proctor's argument, finding that the Fourth Circuit cases
he cited had no bearing on the motion before the Court.
[Id.] Finally, the Court also found that “no
jurists of reason could find its procedural ruling to be
debatable, ” and, therefore, no certificate of
appealability was warranted in the case. [Id. at
5-6.] On December 29, 2017, Proctor filed a Notice of Appeal
with this Court. [R. 42]. Currently, the Sixth Circuit is
holding this case in abeyance “until the district court
rules on pending motions.” [R. 43 at 1.]
now moves the Court, pursuant to Rule 59(e), to alter or
amend its Judgment denying his § 2255 Motion. If the
Court denies this motion, Proctor “would also like to
be granted to right to appeal the denial of the 2255;
COA.” [R. 38 at 1.] The Sixth Circuit and its lower
courts have consistently held that a Rule 59 motion should
not be used either to reargue a case on the merits or to
reargue issues already presented, see Whitehead v.
Bowen, 301 Fed.Appx. 484, 489 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v.
Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)), or otherwise
to “merely restyle or rehash the initial issues,
” Derby City Capital, LLC v. Trinity HR
Servs., 949 F.Supp.2d 712, 746 (W.D.Ky.2013) (quoting
White v. Hitachi, Ltd., 2008 WL 782565, at *1 (E.D.
Tenn. Mar. 20, 2008)). “It is not the function of a
motion to reconsider arguments already considered and
rejected by the court.” Id. (citing
White, 2008 WL 782565, at *1). The Sixth Circuit
instructs that a motion for reconsideration should only be
granted on four grounds: “Under Rule 59, a court may
alter or amend a judgment based on: ‘(1) a clear error
of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening
change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest
injustice.'” Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Intera Corp. v.. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605,
620 (6th Cir. 2005)). Furthermore, because there is an
interest in the finality of a decision, this Court and other
district courts have held that “such motions are
extraordinary and sparingly granted.” Derby City
Capital, 949 F.Supp.2d at 747 (alteration omitted)
(quoting Marshall v. Johnson, 2007 WL 1175046, at *2
(W.D. Ky. Apr. 19, 2007)); see also Encompass Indem. Co.
v. Halfhill, 2014 WL 1343392, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 3,
2014); Plaskon Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Allied-Signal,
Inc., 904 F.Supp. 644, 669 (N.D. Ohio 1995));
Rottmund v. Cont'l Assurance Co., 813 F.Supp.
1104, 1107 (E.D. Pa.1992).
Motion does not warrant relief under Rule 59. The arguments
presented in Proctor's instant Motion are the same
arguments he presented in his § 2255 Motion. As such, he
merely renews and rehashes arguments that the Court already
considered and rejected. Under the well-settled law of this
Circuit, a Rule 59 motion should not be used either to
reargue a case on the merits or to reargue issues already
presented, e.g., Whitehead, 301 Fed.Appx. at 489;
Engler, 146 F.3d at 374, or otherwise to
“merely restyle or rehash the initial issues, ”
Derby City Capital, 949 F.Supp.2d at 746. Quite
simply, “[i]t is not the function of a motion to
reconsider arguments already considered and rejected by the
court.” Id. (citation omitted). Accordingly,
the Court finds no basis to grant Proctor the relief he
without any new argument from Proctor on the subject, the
Court stands by its previous decision that Proctor's
§ 2255 motion was untimely. When a plain procedural bar
is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to
dispose of the matter, a reasonable jurist could not conclude
either that the court erred in dismissing the motion or that
the movant should be allowed to proceed further. Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Thus, the Court
still finds that no certificate of appealability is warranted
in this case.
foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Motion for Reconsideration, [R. 38], is
IS SO ORDERED.
 As explained in the Court's
Memorandum Opinion denying Proctor's § 2255 motion,
a certificate of appealability should issue if the movant
shows “that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the motion states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district ...