The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PIERRE WATSON, )
# 135714, )
)
Petitioner, )
) Civil No. 20-cv-00545-DWD
vs. )
)
SHANNON WOLF, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Pierre Watson’s Motion for
Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 59(e) or in Alternative Order [for] Transfer. (Doc. 28).
Also before the Court is a Motion to Reconsider Motion to Compound and/or Intervene
filed by non-party Oscar Dillon, III, who is a fellow inmate with Watson in the Randolph
County Jail.1 (Doc. 29).
After consideration of Respondent’s Answer and Watson’s Reply, the Court
previously dismissed the Petition without prejudice to Watson pursuing his substantive
claims before the Eastern District of Missouri. (Doc. 24).
While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly contemplate motions
to reconsider, such motions are routinely filed and generally construed as Motions to
Alter or Amend an Order or Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Mares
v. Busby, 34 F.3d 533, 535 (7th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 299, 300 (7th Cir. 1992).
1 The Court denied Dillon’s motion seeking to intervene (Doc. 26) as moot because the instant
habeas case had been closed before Dillon filed his motion. (Doc. 27).
Watson’s motion was filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment and will be considered
under Rule 59(e). Banks v. Chicago Board of Education, 750 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2014).
Rule 59(e) allows a court to alter or amend a judgment in order to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to address newly discovered evidence. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517
F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir. 2008). However, “[r]econsideration is not an appropriate forum for
rehashing previously rejected arguments.” Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus.,
Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996).
Background
Watson is a convicted federal prisoner serving an 84-month sentence imposed in
the Eastern District of Missouri in June 2017. United States v. Watson, Case No. 15-cr-440-
AGF (E.D. Mo.). After his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, he
filed a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, in which he alleges ineffective assistance
of counsel. Watson v. United States, Case No. 19-cv-1545-AGF (E.D. Mo.). Watson was
transferred from a BOP institution to the Randolph County Jail in anticipation of an
evidentiary hearing on the motion. The hearing was reset several times because of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Most recently, it was set for October 2020. That setting was vacated
on the Government’s motion because voluminous discovery materials had recently been
produced by Watson’s attorney. Case No. 19-cv-1545-AGF, Docs. 127 & 134. The hearing
has not been reset.
In his Petition, Watson alleges that his underlying health conditions along with his
age (42) put him at risk of severe illness or complications should he become infected with
COVID-19. He alleges that conditions at the Randolph County Jail violate his Eighth
Amendment rights because the Jail has not taken sufficient procedures to mitigate the
spread of COVID-19. He also alleges that delays in setting the evidentiary hearing on his
§ 2255 motion violate his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
The Court dismissed his Petition because Watson cannot challenge the conditions
of his confinement in a § 2241 Petition. The Court noted that conditions of confinement
are sometimes considered in determining whether a civil detainee’s imprisonment has
become unconstitutional, but Watson is not a civil detainee. He is, rather, a convicted
prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, the detainee cases relied upon
by him are not relevant. (Doc. 24, p. 3).
Further, the Court noted that Watson has a motion for compassionate release
pending in his criminal case. That motion relies on the same COVID-19 risks that he
alleges here. The Court concluded that, under the terms of the First Step Act, the
sentencing court is the appropriate court to consider a motion for compassionate release.
Lastly, the Court determined that Watson does not have a cognizable due process claim
arising from delays in his § 2255 case. (Doc. 24, p. 4).
Analysis
Watson advances two grounds for reconsideration. First, he repeats his assertion
that he is a detainee. Second, he claims that he has “new evidence.”
Watson wants to be regarded as a detainee so that he can lever his way into having
the Court consider whether the conditions of his confinement cause his confinement to
be unconstitutional. He wants to be treated in the same manner as the petitioner in Chavez
Garcia v. Acuff, Case No. 20-cv-357-NJR (S.D. Ill.). The petitioner in Chavez Garcia was a
civil detainee, held in ICE custody pending removal. In contrast, as this Court previously
explained, Watson is serving a sentence of imprisonment and is therefore not a civil
detainee.
Watson does not offer anything new in support of his argument that he is a civil
detainee. The Court has already considered and rejected his position. A Rule 59 motion
which merely rehashes the same argument is properly denied. Oto v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000).
Watson’s “new evidence” is an assertion that an inmate who had previously been
diagnosed with COVID-19 was placed in his cellblock about two weeks before the Rule
59 motion was filed. Whether this assertion qualifies as “new evidence” is debatable.
Watson offers nothing to substantiate his claim and does not suggest that this new inmate
posed any risk of infection to Watson. Regardless, this purported new evidence goes to
the conditions of Watson’s confinement, and those conditions are not a matter for
consideration in this case because Watson is not a civil detainee.
Disposition
Petitioner Pierre Watson’s Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 59(e) or in
Alternative Order [for] Transfer (Doc. 28) is DENIED. This case remains DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Watson pursuing his substantive claims before the Eastern
District of Missouri. (See Doc. 24).
Watson’s Motion Requesting Status Conference (Doc. 32) and the Motion to
Reconsider Motion to Compound and/or Intervene filed by non-party Oscar Dillon, III,
(Doc. 29) are DENIED as moot.
Petitioner Watson’s filing of his Rule 59(e) motion suspended the deadline for
filing a notice of appeal following the dismissal of the case. FED. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Now
that the motion has been denied, if Petitioner wishes to appeal the dismissal of this action,
his notice of appeal must be filed with this court within 30 days of the date of this order.
FED. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”) must set forth
the issues Petitioner plans to present on appeal. See FED. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Petitioner
does choose to appeal and is allowed to proceed IFP, he will be liable for a portion of the
$505.00 appellate filing fee (the amount to be determined based on his prison trust fund
account records for the past six months) irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. See
R. App. P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725-26 (7th
Cir. 2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d
464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). It is not necessary for Petitioner to obtain a certificate of
appealability in an appeal from this Petition brought under § 2241. Walker v. O’Brien, 216
F.3d 626, 638 (7th Cir. 2000).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: November 13, 2020
Mh bok,
DAVIDW.DUGAN
United States District Judge