“Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments”
How later courts described this case
- “Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
HENRY R BROWN,
Petitioner,
Case No. 15-cv-1303-bhl
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On March 17, 2022, this Court entered an order and judgment denying petitioner Henry
Brown’s motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255. (ECF Nos. 27 & 28.) On April
14, within the 28-day window to file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion for post-judgment relief, Brown
moved the Court to reconsider its order. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); ECF No. 29.) Because the
motion does not identify any valid reason to alter or amend the order or judgment, it will be denied.
“A Rule 59(e) motion will be successful only 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, 772 F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir.
2013) (quoting Blue v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012)).
Brown’s motion does not identify any newly discovered evidence, so he can only prevail if he
identifies a manifest error of law or fact.
In his motion, Brown primarily rehashes arguments the Court has already rejected. This is
not a basis for relief. See Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264,
1270 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously
rejected arguments”). Beyond rearguing his losing positions, Brown raises only two new issues,
both factual points in the Court’s order that he contends were mistaken. Neither warrants
reconsideration.
First, Brown suggests that the Court improperly implied that he was driving the car that led
Police Lieutenant Kevin Keag on a high-speed chase on November 30, 2006. (ECF No. 29 at 3.)
According to Brown, someone else was driving, and the driver was arrested, while Brown escaped
on foot. (Id.) The Court’s order never states outright that Brown was driving. (See ECF No. 27.)
Even if it had, this mistake would not alter any of the legal analysis. Counsel still would not have
been imprudent for failing to call Brown’s brother—the owner of the car Brown escaped from—
to testify that at the time Brown was using that car, the brothers were estranged. This is true for
the same reasons listed in the Court’s order.
Second, Brown argues that the Court erred when it stated that Markita Lewis “provided her
Illinois license, which listed her address as 1441 Morris Avenue, Berkely, Illinois.” (ECF No. 27
at 2; ECF No. 29 at 4.) According to Brown, Lewis actually presented police officers with a fake
license, but that license did list her address as 1441 Morris Avenue, Berkely Illinois. (ECF No. 29
at 4.) Again, if true, this fact makes no difference to the ultimate outcome. The license provided
justification to investigate 1441 Morris Avenue, and that investigation led to evidence used to
convict Brown independent of any potentially illegal GPS monitoring that might have occurred.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Henry Brown’s motion for reconsideration
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, ECF No. 29, is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin on May 2, 2022.
s/ Brett H. Ludwig
BRETT H. LUDWIG
United States District Judge