Freeman v. Warden - FCI Greenville

S.D. Illinois

Freeman v. Warden - FCI Greenville

District Court, S.D. Illinois·Decided January 24, 2023·No. 3:22-cv-01301·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SENECCA FREEMAN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 22-CV-1301-SMY ) WARDEN FCI GREENVILLE, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER YANDLE, District Judge: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner Senecca Freeman filed the instant habeas corpus action to challenge his designation under the Armed Career Criminal Act because of a predicate unarmed robbery conviction. On December 15, 2022, this Court denied Freeman’s habeas petition and entered judgment (Docs. 14 and 15). Freeman now moves for reconsideration (Doc. 16). Under Rule 59(e), the Court may alter or amend its judgment if the movant “clearly establish[es] (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.” Blue v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006)). Relief sought under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remed[y] reserved for the exceptional case.” Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008). Motions for reconsideration are not appropriate vehicles for re-litigating arguments the Court previously rejected or for arguing issues or presenting evidence that could have been raised during the pendency of the motion presently under reconsideration. Sigworth v. City of Aurora, 487 F.3d 506, 512 (7th Cir. 2007). In other words, a proper motion to reconsider does more than take umbrage and restate the arguments that were initially rejected. County of McHenry v. Ins. Co. of the West, 438 F.3d 813, 819 (7th Cir. 2006). Here, Freeman reasserts arguments that this Court ruled are preluded by the waiver of collateral attack clauses in his plea agreement. He fails to identify any newly discovered case law, or a manifest error of law or fact committed by the Court. Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 16) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 24, 2023 Aeitl Ce STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SENECCA FREEMAN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 22-CV-1301-SMY ) WARDEN FCI GREENVILLE, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER YANDLE, District Judge: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner Senecca Freeman filed the instant habeas corpus action to challenge his designation under the Armed Career Criminal Act because of a predicate unarmed robbery conviction. On December 15, 2022, this Court denied Freeman’s habeas petition and entered judgment (Docs. 14 and 15). Freeman now moves for reconsideration (Doc. 16). Under Rule 59(e), the Court may alter or amend its judgment if the movant “clearly establish[es] (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.” Blue v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006)). Relief sought under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remed[y] reserved for the exceptional case.” Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008). Motions for reconsideration are not appropriate vehicles for re-litigating arguments the Court previously rejected or for arguing issues or presenting evidence that could have been raised during the pendency of the motion presently under reconsideration. Sigworth v. City of Aurora, 487 F.3d 506, 512 (7th Cir. 2007). In other words, a proper motion to reconsider does more than take umbrage and restate the arguments that were initially rejected. County of McHenry v. Ins. Co. of the West, 438 F.3d 813, 819 (7th Cir. 2006). Here, Freeman reasserts arguments that this Court ruled are preluded by the waiver of collateral attack clauses in his plea agreement. He fails to identify any newly discovered case law, or a manifest error of law or fact committed by the Court. Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 16) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 24, 2023 Aeitl Ce STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2

Freeman v. Warden - FCI Greenville, (S.D. Ill. 2023).

Pincite

Freeman v. Warden - FCI Greenville (Freeman v. Warden - FCI Greenville) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related