The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
WAKILII BROWN, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) 1:21-cv-00504-LSC
)
)
JOHN Q. HAMM, )
Commissioner, Alabama )
Department of Corrections, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner, Wakilii Brown’s, Motion to
Alter or Amend this Court’s Memorandum of Opinion and Order denying his
petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from his state court conviction for
capital murder and death sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 41.) For the
reasons that follow, the motion is due to be denied.
II. Standard of Review
Brown’s motion is timely filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e), which allows a party to file a motion to amend or alter the judgment of a court
with 28 days after entry of that judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Rule 59 “was
adopted to ‘mak[e] clear that the district court possesses the power’ to rectify its own
mistakes in the period immediately following the entry of judgment.” White v. New
Hampshire Dep’t of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982). “The decision to
alter or amend a judgment is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”
Drago v. Jenne, 453 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). “The only
grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest
errors of law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)
(quotation marks and internal brackets omitted). A manifest error of law is the
“disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Oto v.
Metro. Life Ins., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise
argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment.” King, 500 F.3d at 1343 (quotation marks and internal brackets omitted).
III. Discussion
Brown contends that the Court’s judgment contains manifest errors of law and
fact with regard to its resolution of several of his claims. Brown also contends that
even if this Court declines to reconsider its judgment and grant habeas relief, it
should at the least grant a certificate of appealability.
This Court has thoroughly reviewed Brown’s arguments, but the Court finds
that his motion is an attempt to relitigate arguments that the Court has already
considered and addressed in its Memorandum of Opinion and Order denying his
petition. The Court thus concludes that these arguments do not justify altering or
amending the Court’s judgment or granting a certificate of appealability.
IV. Conclusion
Having considered Brown’s arguments and for the above reasons, it is ordered
that Brown’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (doc. 41) is hereby DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED on December 19, 2024.
L. Scott
United States District Judge
160704