Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 21-14-SDD-SDJ
06-24-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KENTRELL D. GAULDEN
RULING
SHELLY D. DICK, Judge
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the United States (“the Government”). Kentrell Gaulden (“Gaulden”) filed an Opposition to this Motion, and the Government filed a Reply. For the reasons set forth below, the Government's Motion is denied.
Rec. Doc. No. 175.
Rec. Doc. No. 177.
Rec. Doc. No. 180.
Rec. Doc. No. 175.
I. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Gaulden filed a Motion to Suppress in June 2021. The Court held a three-day evidentiary hearing. The Court ordered the parties to file post-hearing briefs, and both parties complied. The Court then requested supplemental briefing, which both parties filed. The Government requests reconsideration of the Court's Ruling on the Motion to Suppress.
Rec. Doc. No. 53.
Rec. Doc. Nos. 130, 133, 140.
Rec. Doc. No. 140.
Rec. Doc. Nos. 156, 157.
Rec. Doc. No. 160.
Rec. Doc. Nos. 161, 162.
Rec. Doc. No. 164.
As recently summarized by a court in the Eastern District of Texas:
Motions to reconsider serve a limited purpose: to permit a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact, or to present newly discovered evidence. Mere disagreement with a district court's order does not warrant reconsideration. A party should not restate, recycle, or rehash arguments that were previously made. District court opinions are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure.
United States v. Chasteen, 2021 WL 1721809, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2021) (cleaned up).
Further, motions to reconsider serve a narrow purpose. “Such requests are often made, but granting the relief is rare, as it is an extraordinary remedy [and] should be used sparingly.” “Motions for reconsideration are not to be used to relitigate old matters or to present evidence that could have been raised prior to entry of judgment.” A motion for reconsideration “is not a device to be used to raise arguments that could and should have been urged earlier or to rehash arguments already made and previously rejected.”Rather, “litigants are expected to present their strongest case when the matter is first considered.”
Nationalist Movement v. Town of Jena, 321 Fed.Appx. 359, 365 (5th Cir.2009).
United States v. Lopez, 817 F.Supp.2d 918, 932 (S.D.Miss. 2011) (internal citations omitted).
Id.
United States v. Mack, 2016 WL 70825, at *1 (M.D. La. Jan. 6, 2016).
State of Louisiana v. Sprint Comms. Co., 899 F.Supp. 282, 284 (M.D. La. 1995).
The Government “raises two arguments on the issue of standing that, regrettably, were not fully briefed in the Government's [prior] filings....” The Government asserts that the “Court should thus reconsider its ruling-despite the United States' failure to adequately bring these issues to the Court's attention before issuance of the ruling-to avoid a miscarriage of justice.”
Rec. Doc. No. 175-1, p. 1.
Id. at 2.
The Court will deny the Government's Motion. The Government fails to explain how a miscarriage of justice will occur if the Court does not grant its Motion. Rather, the Government simply offers two additional arguments in support of its original Opposition. But the time to raise those arguments has passed, and the Government could have done so in its Opposition, at the three-day hearing, in its post-hearing brief, or in the supplemental post-hearing briefs. Fourth Amendment standing is not a jurisdictional prerequisite; it is a part of the defendant's substantive case. The Court addressed standing at length in its prior Ruling, and the Government fails to show that the Court committed a manifest error of law or fact.
Byrd v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1518, 1530 (2018).
Rec. Doc. No. 164, p. 8-20.
II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Government's Motion is denied.
Rec. Doc. No. 175.
IT IS SO ORDERED.