Opinion
Criminal No. 00-213(1) (JRT/FLN) Civil No. 02-682 (JRT)
August 25, 2003
Osman Karriem, Lompoc, CA for petitioner
Eric P. Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Minneapolis, Minnesota for respondent
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S RULE 59(e) MOTION
Petitioner Osman Karriem ("Karriem") is serving a prison sentence of 120 months after having pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b) (1) (A) and 846. Karriem filed a petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On July 1, 2003, this Court denied Karriem's petition and dismissed it with prejudice. See Karriem v. United States, Crim. No. 00-213, Civ. No. 02-682, 2003 WL 21649992 at *3 (D. Minn. Jul. 1, 2003) ("July 1 Order"). Karriem has now filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He has also filed motions for an evidentiary hearing and for appointment of counsel. For the reasons discussed below, the Court now denies the motions.
DISCUSSION
A Rule 59(e) motion serves the limited function of correcting "manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.O.T. Assoc. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). Such a motion cannot be used to introduce evidence that was available prior to entry of judgment but was not proffered, to re-litigate old issues, to advance new theories, or to secure a rehearing on the merits. Id.; Dale Selby Superette Deli v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 838 F. Supp. 1346, 1348 (D. Minn. 1993).
Karriem's Rule 59(e) motion does nothing more than re-state substantive arguments that he made — and this Court rejected — in his unsuccessful § 2255 petition. As discussed above, these are not proper arguments for a Rule 59(e) motion. For this reason, the Court must deny his motion. The Court's July 1 Order also considered and rejected Karriem's desire for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing. Because the Court is not granting the Rule 59(e) motion, these other motions are moot.
The July 1 Order found that because Karriem was not entitled to relief under § 2255, his request for counsel was moot. Although the Court did not expressly address the issue of an evidentiary hearing, its finding that Karriem was not entitled to relief implicitly determined that an evidentiary hearing was not needed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (stating that upon a § 2255 motion, the Court shall grant an evidentiary hearing unless the record "conclusively show[s] that the prisoner is entitled to no relief").
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, all the records, files, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:1. Petitioner's Rule 59(e) Motion [Docket No. 110] is DENIED.
2. Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Docket No. 111] DENIED AS MOOT.
3. Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing [Docket No. 112] is DENIED AS MOOT.
4. Pursuant to Rule 4(a) (4) (A) (iv) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the time to file an appeal in this case will begin to run from the date of this order.