A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the court issued its final judgment. Builes v. Nye, 253 F. Supp. 2d 818, 820 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (Caldwell, J.). Accordingly, a party seeking reconsideration must demonstrate at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.
Accordingly, the court granted Builes' petition and enjoined his removal until such time as he could be removed to Colombia or some other country without being killed. Id.; Builes v. Nye, 253 F. Supp. 2d 818, 820-21 (M.D. Pa. 2003). In Edwards v. INS, No. 03-286, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15572, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2003) aff'd, 100 Fed. Appx. 126 (3d Cir. 2004) (unpublished opinion), Richard Edwards ("Edwards"), a citizen of Jamaica, was convicted of several drug trafficking offenses.
Lawson contends that his removal to Jamaica would offend substantive due process because the United States would knowingly expose Lawson to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm. In support of this claim, Lawson relies primarily uponBuiles v. Nye, 239 F. Supp. 2d 518 (M.D. Pa. 2003),reconsideration denied, 253 F. Supp. 2d 818 (M.D. Pa. 2003). Builes, like this case, involved an alien who had provided substantial assistance that proved crucial to the conviction of fellow drug traffickers from the alien's native country.