FLETCHER

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

takes issue with Magistrate Judge Reid’s reasoning in her Report and Recommendation, ECF No. , which this Court adopted in full on December 4, 2019, ECF No. . The Court has reviewed the Motion, the record in this case, and the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied. “Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a party to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after the entry of the judgment.

Rule 59 applies in § 2254 habeas corpus cases because those cases are civil in nature.” Bland v. Alabama, No. 2:15- CV-0029-MHH-JEO, 2016 WL 10930989, at *1 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 6, 2016) (citing Browder v. Director, DOC of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 269-70 (1978); Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Habeas Cases).

However, the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit have made it clear that Rule 59(e) “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008); see also Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, 771 F. 3d 713, 746 (11th Cir. 2014); In re Kellogg, 197 F. 3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999) (recognizing that Rule 59(e) motions may only be granted based on “newlydiscovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.”); Arthur v. King, 500 F. 3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (“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.”). “A motion for relief under Rule 59(e) is a matter committed to the discretion of the district court.” Bland, 2016 WL 10930989, at *1 (citing Stansell, 771 F. 3d at 746).

Here, although Petitioner attempts to cast his arguments as pointing out manifest errors of law and fact, his Motion does little more than reassert the same previously unsuccessful arguments. See Jeffus v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 759 F. App’x 773, 777 (11th Cir. 2018).

Specifically, Petitioner reasserts the following arguments: (1) on claims 1 and 5, Petitioner argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to or move to suppress the DNA evidence taken from him, compare ECF No. at 6, 13; ECF No. at 5, 9; ECF No. at

2-3, 6-7, with ECF No. at 3-5; (2) on claim 2, Petitioner argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the factual basis for Petitioner’s plea, compare ECF No. at 8; ECF No. at 6, with ECF No. at 6; (3) on claim 3, Petitioner argues that counsel was ineffective for waiving Petitioner’s speedy trial rights, compare ECF No. at 9; ECF No. at 7; ECF No. at 3-4, with ECF No. at 7; and (4) on claim 4, Petitioner argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to present the testimony of an exculpatory witness, compare ECF No. at 11; ECF No. at 8; ECF No. at 4-6, with ECF No. at 8. Such arguments are Petitioner’s improper attempts to relitigate old matters. See Baker, 554 U.S. at 485 Case No. 17-cv-61733-BLOOM/Reid

n.5; Stansell, 771 F. 3d at 746; In re Kellogg, 197 F. 3d at 1119; Arthur, 500 F. 3d at 1343. Thus, the Court concludes that the relief requested must be denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s Motion, ECF No. , is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on January 15, 2020.

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: The Honorable Lisette Reid Counsel of Record Clifford Charles Fletcher 684215 Charlotte Correctional Institution Inmate Mail/Parcels 33123 Oil Well Road Punta Gorda, FL 33955