Perkins v. United States

• Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
• Decided: June 6, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01883
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

LARRY PERKINS,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:22-CV-1883-NJR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge: Pending before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Petitioner Larry Perkins. (Doc. 8). Perkins asks the Court to reconsider the dismissal of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. (Doc. 6). The Court dismissed Perkins’s claim that his counsel was ineffective because it was untimely under § 2255(f)(1), and it also rejected Perkins’s claim that the Court lacked jurisdiction over his criminal case, resulting in a void judgment that can be challenged at any time. (Id.). Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the Court to alter or amend a judgment where the movant clearly establishes: “(1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.” Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Blue v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012)). A manifest error “is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. It is the wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Relief under

this rule is an extraordinary remedy “reserved for the exceptional case.” Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008). “The decision whether to grant or deny a Rule 59(e) motion is entrusted to the sound judgment of the district court.” Matter of Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996). Perkins asserts the Court committed a manifest error of law because the one-year statute of limitations in § 2255(f) is unconstitutional. Specifically, Perkins claims § 2255(f)

conflicts with his First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Since the nineteenth century, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that “statutes of limitation affecting existing rights are not unconstitutional, if a reasonable time is given for the commencement of an action before the bar takes effect.” Terry v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 628, 632–33, 24 L. Ed. 365 (1877).

The Seventh Circuit has not directly addressed the constitutionality of § 2255(f), but it has, on numerous occasions, upheld the application of the statute of limitations. See e.g., Lund v. United States, 913 F.3d 665, 669 (7th Cir. 2019) (upholding the Congressionally- imposed, one-year limit for petitioners to bring § 2255 motions); Perrone v. United States, 889 F.3d 898, 909 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Because Perrone filed his petition after § 2255(f)’s

statute of limitations had run, he is barred from raising that claim now.”). Absent controlling precedent holding that § 2255(f) is unconstitutional, Perkins has failed to demonstrate that this Court committed a manifest error of law when it applied the one- year statute of limitations to his motion. The remainder of Perkins’s Rule 59(e) motion consists of the same arguments he made in his original § 2255; therefore, the Court will not consider them. See Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (Rule 59(e) motions cannot to be used to “rehash” previously rejected arguments). Because Perkins has not demonstrated a manifest error of law or fact allowing the Court to alter or amend its judgment under Rule 59(e), his Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 8) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 6, 2023

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3