Goodwin v. United State of America, No. 4:2019cv01893 - Document 26 (E.D. Mo. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration, [Doc. No. 25 ], is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 3/24/21. (EAB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Goodwin v. United State of America Doc. 26 Case: 4:19-cv-01893-HEA Doc. #: 26 Filed: 03/24/21 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 77 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL GOODWIN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:19CV1893 HEA OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, [Doc. No. 25]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied. On February 16, 2021, the Court entered its Opinion, Memorandum and Order denying Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis. Judgment was entered that same date. Petitioner now seeks reconsideration of the Opinion. Discussion Rule 59 motions serve the “limited function” of correcting “manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence,” and cannot be used to “introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.” United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). It is improper to bring a Rule 59 motion in order to “repeat[ Dockets.Justia.com Case: 4:19-cv-01893-HEA Doc. #: 26 Filed: 03/24/21 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 78 ] arguments the district court had already rejected” in the order Petitioner is asking to be altered or amended. Preston v. City of Pleasant Hill, 642 F.3d 646, 652 (8th Cir. 2011). In its February 16, 2021 Opinion, the Court articulated its reasons for denying Petitioner’s request for the Writ. Petitioner again argues the same bases for his petition and has presented nothing new establishing manifest errors of law or fact, nor does he present newly discovered evidence that he could not have presented originally. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, [Doc. No. 25], is DENIED. Dated this 24th day of March, 2021. ________________________________ HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES 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.
