Opinion
Case No. A4-04-123.
December 1, 2004
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On November 22, 2004, the Court denied Vance Gillette's petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1303. (Docket No. 13). On November 29, 2004, Gillette filed a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Eighth Circuit has explained that Rule 59(e) "was adopted to clarify a district court's power to correct its own mistakes in the time period immediately following entry of judgment." Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Associates of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Norman v. Arkansas Dep't of Educ., 79 F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 1996)). "Rule 59(e) motions serve a limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Innovative Home Health Care, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (quotations omitted). "Such 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. "District courts enjoy broad discretion in ruling on such motions." Capital Indemnity Co. v. Russellville Steel Co., Inc., 367 F.3d 831, 834 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing Concordia College Corp. v. W.R. Grace Co., 999 F.2d 326, 330 (8th Cir. 1993)).
The Court has carefully reviewed the pleadings and finds that there is no justification for granting a Rule 59(e) motion to amend or alter its prior judgment. Gillette's brief merely reargues his petition for habeas corpus relief. Following Eighth Circuit precedent, the Court finds that there has been no mistake or manifest error of law that would warrant the granting of such a motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Gillette's Motion for Reconsideration. (Docket No. 15). IT IS SO ORDERED.