Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-444-SDD-SCR
12-02-2013
KATHERINE CONNER v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiff, Katherine Conner. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Ruling adopting the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and the Order of Dismissal. The Motion for Reconsideration was filed within 28 days of the relevant ruling; thus, it is evaluated pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the correctness of a judgment." However, a Rule 59(e) motion is "not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment." Rather, a motion for reconsideration is for the purpose of correcting "manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence."
Rec. Doc. No. 11.
Rec. Doc. No. 8.
Rec. Doc. No. 6.
Rec. Doc. No. 10.
Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004)(citation and quotations omitted).
Id. at 479.
Id. (citations and quotations omitted).
The Court previously held that Plaintiff's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus was untimely. Plaintiff relies on McQuiggin v. Perkins wherein the United States Supreme Court heid that "actual innocence, if proved, serves as a gateway through which a petitioner may pass whether the impediment is a procedural bar ... or, as in this case, expiration of the statute of limitations." However, the Supreme Court continued: "We caution, however, that tenable actual-innocence gateway pleas are rare: '[A] petitioner does not meet the threshold requirement unless he persuades a district court that, in light of the new evidence, no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."' Prisoners asserting actual innocence as a gateway to federal habeas review must present "new reliable evidence - whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence ... that was not presented at trial."
133S.Ct. 1924, 1928 (2013).
Id., quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 329, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995).
House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 537, 126 S.Ct. 2064, 2077 (2006) citing Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. at 299, 324-29.
In this case, Plaintiff has not presented "new evidence" of her actual innocence; rather, she continues to urge the same arguments and evidence made at her trial which were rejected by the state courts, Thus, the tolling exception set forth in McQuiggin is inapplicable to Plaintiff's claims.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Rec. Doc. No. 11
--------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 2 day of December, 2013.
_____________________________
SHELLY D. DICK, DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA