Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. Toole

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

July 16, 2014

CHADRUS LEQUARDRA BROWN, Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT TOOLE, Warden, Respondent.

ORDER

RICHARD W. STORY, District Judge.

By Order and Judgment [18, 19] entered on June 13, 2014, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), dismissed this action, and denied a certificate of appealability. The matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motion to reconsider [20] and motion for a certificate of appealability [23].

The Magistrate Judge (1) found that Petitioner's claims that the state trial court lacked jurisdiction and that a great injustice had occurred were subject to the one year limitations period and (2) recommended that Petitioner's challenge to his 1998 Cobb County conviction number XXXXXXXXX be dismissed as untimely. (R&R [15] at 2-4, 7.) The Court adopted the R&R. (Order [18].) Petitioner seeks reconsideration and asserts actual innocence.[1] (Mot. to Recons. [20] ΒΆ 5.)

A party may move for alteration or amendment of a judgment if the motion is filed within twenty-eight days of the entry of judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). "The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.... A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Arthur v. King , 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (brackets, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted).

The standard for an actual innocence exception to the federal limitations period is high, and Petitioner presents nothing that meets that standard. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, ___ U.S. ___, ___ , 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1928 (-) (stating that the petitioner must "persuade[] the district court that, in light of the new evidence, no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" (quoting Schlup v. Delo , 513 U.S. 298, 329 (1995)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).[2] Petitioner does not set forth any previously unavailable facts or law, and the Court that finds nothing that persuades it to retreat from its previous decision.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion to reconsider [20] is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability [23] is DENIED as moot in light of the Court's prior Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.