ROCHER
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the motion for reconsideration because the petitioner failed to identify or brief additional grounds for relief within the time allowed.
The petitioner sought reconsideration of the denial of his 2255 motion, claiming he had raised nine grounds for relief. The court had previously addre…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER1
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Oliver Rocher’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19). The Court denied Rocher’s 2255 Motion. (Doc. 15). In doing so, the Court addressed Grounds 1-4, which Rocher raised in his Motion and forty-four-page Memo in support (Docs. 1; 2). The Government briefed all four issues. (Doc. 11). Now, Rocher claims he actually raised nine grounds. Since the Government did not respond to the unidentified Grounds 5-9, says Rocher, the Court must reconsider and grant his 2255. Not so. Because Rocher sought reconsideration within twenty-eight days, the Court liberally construes this under Rule 59(e). Following Rule 59(e),
“relitigate old matters.” See Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Slaughter, 958 F. 3d 1050, 1059-60 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Nor will courts “address new arguments or evidence that the moving party could have raised before the decision issued.” Banister, 140 S. Ct. at 1703. “The burden is upon the movant to establish the extraordinary circumstances supporting reconsideration.” U.S. ex rel. Matej v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., 869 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1348 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (citation omitted). While a bit unclear, Rocher seems to contend he filed a seventy-two-page motion and memo addressing nine grounds. (Doc. 19 at 2-3). To be sure, Rocher referenced Grounds 5-9 at various points earlier. But Rocher never filed briefing on them. Nor did he ever identify what Grounds 5-9 might be. And the time to raise argument in support of his Motion expired long ago. What’s more, Rocher says the Government confirmed he raised Grounds 5-9 when it asked for more pages to respond to his seventy-two-page motion. Yet that isn’t true. The Government specifically requested more pages “to respond to the 44-page, single spaced memorandum filed by” Rocher. (Doc. 10 at 1). In other words, the Government confirmed it received the four-ground Motion and forty-four-page Memo filed with the Court. (Docs. 1; 2). Simply put, Rocher failed to file or disclose any additional grounds he intended to raise in his 2255 Motion. Because the time to do so passed over a year ago, there is nothing to reconsider. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on March 10, 2022.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. S. David Anton, PA, 922 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2019)
- United States v. JIM, 891 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2018)
- Banister v. Lorie Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698 (U.S. 2020)
- Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Damitra Baisden, 958 F.3d 1050 (11th Cir. 2020)