United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Nathan P. Petterson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, counsel for plaintiff.
Andrew Jerome Bigbee, #04727-041, USP Leavenworth, P.O. Box 1000, Leavenworth, KS 66048, pro se.
DAVID S. DOTY, District Judge.
This matter is before the court upon the pro se motion by defendant Andrew Jerome Bigbee to alter or amend the court's order denying his requested relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Based upon a review of the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the court denies the motion.
The background of this action is fully set out in the court's order dated April 2, 2015, and the court will not repeat it again here.Bigbee argues that he is entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because the court erred in not granting an evidentiary hearing and in failing to issue a certificate of appealability.
"A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant or deny a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e)...." United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist. , 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006). "Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, "[s]uch motions cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Bigbee is not entitled to relief under Rule 59(e) because he merely restates the issues raised in his § 2255 motion. Further, the court concludes that the order is free of manifest errors of fact or law.
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to alter or amend the ...