Opinion

White v. United States

Court
District Court, S.D. Illinois
Filed
Feb 27, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 21.3%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

KENNETH D. WHITE,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 22-CV-00546-SPM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

McGLYNN, District Judge:

Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 32) filed by Petitioner

Kenneth D. White, an inmate incarcerated at the Forrest City Low Federal

Correctional Institution in Forrest City, Arkansas. White’s Motion requests to reopen

proceedings relating to his Amended Motion to Attack, Set Aside, or Vacate Sentence

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 9). The Court dismissed White’s Amended

Motion with prejudice on January 25, 2024. (See Docs. 30, 31). White filed the instant

Motion on February 5, 2024. (See Doc. 32).

In this new filing, White again argues that his counsel was ineffective for

failing to argue various defense strategies; that the jury should have received

instructions on the entrapment by estoppel defense; and that sting operations like

that which led to his arrest and conviction are “legal racketeering.” (Doc. 32, p. 13;

see generally id.). White asserts that he is bringing the instant Motion pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (See id., p. 1). He asks for this Court to permit

him a “third shot” at making his argument and argues that his case should be allowed

to continue. (Id.).

First, Rule 59(e) covers relief from a trial and/or a judgment and is inapplicable

in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Even considering his Motion under

Rule 60 (which permits relief from orders and from judgments), White’s Motion

merely reiterates and repackages his previous requests for relief. Critically, “Rule

60(b) relief is an extraordinary remedy and is granted only in exceptional

circumstances.” Mares v. Busby, 34 F.3d 533, 535 (7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Dickerson

v. Board of Educ., 32 F.3d 1114 (7th Cir. 1994)); see Gonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791

F.3d 801, 807 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir.

2008)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) states that a party may seek relief from

a judgment for one or more of the following reasons: (1) “mistake, inadvertence,

surprise, or excusable neglect”; (2) “newly discovered evidence”; (3) “fraud”; (4) “the

judgment is void”; (5) “the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is

based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it

prospectively is no longer equitable”; or (6) “any other reason that justifies relief.”

White does not claim that new evidence has been discovered which was not known at

the time of his earlier petitions. Moreover, there is no reason why any of his

arguments could not have been raised in prior filings, meaning that they are

procedurally defaulted. Thus, because his Motion for Reconsideration is simply a

rehash of previously delivered arguments, he has not met the high standard for relief

under Rule 60.

Additionally, because White employs this Motion to reargue the claims

previously alleged in his Amended Motion (Doc. 9); his Supplement (Doc. 18); and his

Response to the Government’s Response to his § 2255 Motion (Doc. 21), the Court

considers the instant Motion as a successive motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255. Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States

District Courts is clear that an order from the cognizant Court of Appeals is required

for the District Court to consider a successive § 2255 motion brought on claims which

were already decided on the merits (as here). Thus, the District Court is without

jurisdiction to consider the instant Motion. Should White wish to appeal this Court’s

ruling, he must seek a certificate of appealability from the Seventh Circuit. Similarly,

should he wish to file a successive § 2255 Motion, he must also obtain certification

from the Seventh Circuit.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, Kenneth D. White’s Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. 32) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 27, 2024

s/ Stephen P. McGlynn

STEPHEN P. McGLYNN

U.S. District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.