Buggs v. Quintana, No. 5:2012cv00337 - Document 7 (E.D. Ky. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Pla's 6 Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 59(e) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on January 14, 2013. (AWD) cc: Pla via US Mail
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DIVISION OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON CARL BUGGS, JR., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA, Warden, Defendant. Civil Case No. 5:12-cv-337-JMH MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER *** This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff s Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 59(e) [D.E. 6], in which he asks memorandum this opinion Court and to order reconsider and judgment its earlier denying his petition for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 [De 4 & 5]. A motion under Rule 59(e) is not an opportunity to re-argue a Indians v. case. Sault Engler, 146 Ste. F.3d Marie 367, 374 Tribe (6th of Chippewa Cir. 1998) (citing FDIC v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992)). if Instead, a Rule 59(e) motion may only be granted there is a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or to prevent manifest injustice. GenCorp, Inc. v. American Intern. Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court has reviewed Petitioner s motion and concludes that it does not satisfy this standard on any of the permissible grounds. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff s Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 59(e) [D.E. 6] shall be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. This the 14th day of January, 2013. 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.
