Rush vs. USA, No. 3:2008cv00479 - Document 13 (S.D. Ill. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION, Denying 12 MOTION for Reconsideration re 10 Memorandum & Opinion filed by George S. Rush, III. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 4/16/09. (bkl)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS GEORGE S. RUSH, III, Petitioner, v. Case No. 08-cv-479-JPG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12) of the Court s Order denying habeas relief. Where a substantive motion for reconsideration is filed within ten days of entry of judgment, the Court will generally construe it as a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e); later motions will be construed as pursuant to Rule 60(b). Mares v. Busby, 34 F.3d 533, 535 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 299, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). Rush s Motion falls within the latter category. It is well settled that Rule 60(b) relief is an extraordinary remedy and is granted only in exceptional circumstances. McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 327 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Dickerson v. Board of Educ., 32 F.3d 1114, 1116 (7th Cir. 1994)). Rule 60(b) allows a court to address mistakes attributable to special circumstances and not merely to erroneous applications of law. Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of General Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir. 1995). The rule authorizes a Court to grant relief from judgment for the specific reasons listed in the rule but does not authorize action in response to general pleas for relief. See Young v. Murphy, 161 F.R.D. 61, 62 (N.D. Ill. 1995). It is also not an appropriate vehicle for addressing simple legal error, for rehashing old arguments, or for presenting arguments that should have been raised before the court made its decision. Russell, 51 F.3d at 749; Rutledge v. United States, 230 F.3d 1041, 1052 (7th Cir. 2000); Young, 161 F.R.D. at 62; In re Oil Spill by Amoco Cadiz, 794 F. Supp. 261, 267 (N.D. Ill. 1992), aff d, 4 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 1993). Here, Rush merely contends that the Court made an error of law when it concluded that Amendment 709 to the federal sentencing guidelines does not provide grounds for habeas relief for sentences imposed before the Amendment became effective. A motion for reconsideration is not the appropriate vehicle for this argument; an appeal is. Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 16, 2009 s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.