But Rule 59(e) "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments ... that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." J.B.F. by & through Stivers v. Ky. Dep't of Educ., 690 F. App'x 906, 907 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008)). Ultimately, the grant or denial of a Rule 59(e) motion "is within the informed discretion of the district court, reversible only for abuse."
. "The Equal Protection Clause is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." J.B.F. v. Kentucky Dep't of Educ., No. 5:15-CV-33-REW, 2016 WL 3167546, at *9 (E.D. Ky. June 3, 2016), aff'd sub nom. J.B.F. by & through Stivers v. Kentucky Dep't of Educ., 690 Fed.Appx. 906 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Foster v. Michigan, 573 Fed.Appx. 377, 396 (6th Cir. 2014)). The clause "commands that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"[A] Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to 'relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments ... that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment,' or 'to re-argue a case.'" J.B.F. by and through Stivers v. Ky. Dep't of Educ., 690 F. App'x 906, 906-7 (6th Cir. 2017)(quoting Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n. 5 (2008); Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)). III.
J.B.F. by and through Stivers v. Ky. Dep't of Educ., 690 F. App'x 906, 906-7 (6th Cir. 2017)(quoting Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n. 5 (2008); Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)). III. ANALYSIS
(R. 471, PageID.5643, 5648.) As a Rule 59(e) motion is not a vehicle to relitigate "old issues" or "re-argue a case," J.B.F. v. Ky. Dep't of Educ., 690 F. App'x 906, 907 (6th Cir 2017) (internal quotations omitted), Wren's second, third, and fourth objections are overruled. Wren also thinks the sentencing transcript reveals newly-discovered evidence for another reason.
Because neither Rule 59(e) nor 60(b) allows a party to relitigate matters or raise earlier available arguments, this is an independent reason to deny the motion in toto. See, e.g., J.B.F. through Stivers v. Kentucky Dep't of Educ., No. 16-6316, 2017 WL 2829101, at *1 (6th Cir. June 30, 2017) (motion "exclusively rehashed misguided and failed summary judgment arguments and regurgitated rejected case theories, thus constituting sufficient reason to deny the motion outright[ ]") (internal quotation marks omitted); Penley v. NPC Int'l, Inc., 2014 WL 12634410, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 3, 2014) ("NPC's current argument is therefore a fallback position, intermediate stance, or alternative line of reasoning that it could have previously raised but failed to do so. Advancing it now will not satisfy either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b).").