Opinion
Case No. 98 C 5450
December 12, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitoner, Jesse Smith ("Smith"), filed a Motion to Reconsider, arguing that this Court's ruling that his petition for writ of habeas Corpus was untimely was wrong under the law of the case doctrine. For the reasons that follow smith's motion to Reconsider is denied.
LEGAL STANDARD
Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or presenting newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in the law. Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 732 (7th Cir. 1998). Reconsideration is appropriate when "the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension." Spearman Indus., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., 139 F. Supp.2d 943, 945 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales. Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to introduce new legal theories for the first time, to raise legal arguments that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion, or to present evidence that could have been adduced during the pendency of the original motion. Publishers Res., Inc. v. Walker-Davis Publ'ns, Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 1985); In re Oil Spill by the "Amoco Cadiz" off the Coast of France on March 16, 1978, 794 F. Supp. 261, 267 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Movants should not use a motion for reconsideration to rehash arguments previously rejected by the court. Sikora v. AFD Indus., Inc., 18 F. Supp. 841, 844 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
BACKGROUND
Smith filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus against Kenneth R. Briley, Warden of Stateville Correctional Center in Joliet, Illinois, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After an evidentiary hearing, Respondent argued that Smith's petition should be dismissed because it was untimely and/or procedurally barred. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 28, 2002, the Court dismissed Smith's petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that Smith's petition was untimely because Smith's post-conviction petition did not toll the one-year statute of limitations imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
Smith filed, within ten days, a Motion to Reconsider, arguing that (1) the Court's ruling that his habeas petition was untimely was incorrect under the "law of the case" doctrine as stated in White v. Godinez, 301 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2002) and (2) his habeas petition was timely filed where the Illinois Supreme Court denied his post-conviction petition on October 1, 1997.
DISCUSSION
"[U]nder the law of the case doctrine, [courts] do not reopen issues decided in earlier stages of the same litigation unless [they] have a strong conviction that the earlier ruling was wrong and the party that benefitted from the earlier ruling would not be unduly harmed." White, 301 F.3d at 803.
A careful review of the materials submitted to the Court reveals that this argument was obliquely raised in Petitioner's reply in support of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Although this issue was not explicitly discussed in the earlier Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 28, 2002, the Court considered this issue at that time. "A district court is not required to specifically address [in its opinion] each and every [fact] asserted. . . ." Shannon v. Saks Co., No. 94 C 1793, 1995 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9324, at *6 (N.D. Ill. July 3, 1995). Petitioner's motion to reconsider merely restates arguments previously rejected by the Court and, therefore, is denied. See Sikora, 18 F. Supp. at 844.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Jesse Smith's Motion to Reconsider is denied.