United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Petitioner Delchon Weatherspoon's Motion for
Partial Reconsideration, filed on March 2, 2018. (ECF No.
33.) Respondent Sheriff Bill Oldham responded on March 14,
2018. (ECF No. 34.)
following reasons, Weatherspoon's Motion for Partial
Reconsideration is DENIED.
is charged with attempted first degree murder. He is alleged
to have stabbed his girlfriend multiple times. (ECF No. 1-1
at 12, 15-16.)
General Sessions Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, set
Weatherspoon's bail at $200, 000. (ECF No. 1-1.)
Weatherspoon sought to reduce his bail in the Criminal Court
of Shelby County. (Id.) After a hearing, the
Criminal Court decided the $200, 000 bail was appropriate.
(Id.) Weatherspoon ultimately sought review by the
Tennessee Supreme Court. (ECF Nos. 1-3, 1-4.) His request for
reduction of his pretrial bail was denied. (Id.)
25, 2017, Weatherspoon filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “§ 2241
Petition”). (ECF No. 1.) His § 2241 Petition
argued that the Criminal Court had failed to comply with the
Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States
Constitution when setting his bail. (ECF No. 1-7 at 481.)
Weatherspoon contended that Due Process required the state
court to consider indigency and the availability of a less
restrictive non-monetary alternative condition or combination
of conditions of release. (ECF No. 22 at 617.) He also
contended that the state court must apply a clear and
convincing evidence standard to determine whether
Weatherspoon posed an immitigable risk of flight or danger to
the community. (Id. at 616 (A court must
“ma[k]e reviewable findings that clear and convincing
evidence supports the conclusion that the detainee poses a
risk of flight or danger to the community . . . .”).)
February 26, 2018, this Court entered an Order granting a
conditional writ of habeas corpus, releasing Weatherspoon,
unless the state trial court held a bail hearing comporting
with Due Process, within 30 days of the issuance of the writ,
to determine whether continued detention was justified. (ECF
No. 31.) The Court decided that Due Process required the
state court to consider indigency and the availability of a
less restrictive non-monetary alternative condition or
combination of conditions of release. (Id.) The
Court concluded that, absent binding authority to the
contrary, the state court was not required to apply a clear
and convincing standard. (Id.)
March 2, 2018, Weatherspoon filed his Motion for Partial
Reconsideration, contending that the Court should reconsider
whether the state court must apply a clear and convincing
standard. (ECF No. 33-1 at 734.)
cites no authority for his Motion for Partial
Reconsideration. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
contemplate such motions, but the Sixth Circuit has held that
a motion to reconsider may be properly treated as one to
alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e). Smith v.
Hudson, 600 F.2d 60, 62 (6th Cir. 1979).
may grant a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule
59(e) only if there is “(1) a clear error of law; (2)
newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in
controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest
injustice.” ACLU of Ky. v. McCreary Cnty., 607
F.3d 439, 450 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Intera Corp. v.
Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005)). A Rule 59
motion cannot be used to reargue a case on the merits or to
reargue issues already presented. Whitehead v.
Bowen, 301 Fed.Appx. 484, 489 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing
Sault Ste Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler,
146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)); Beltowski v.
Bradshaw, No. 1:08 CV 2651, 2009 WL 5205368, at *4 (N.D.
Ohio Dec. 23, 2009) (“The motion for reconsideration
should not provide the parties with an opportunity for a
second bite at the apple.”); Saia v. Flying J,
Inc., No. 15-CV-01045-STA-EGB, 2016 WL 3200298, at *4
(W.D. Tenn. June 8, 2016) (“Rule 59(e) does not permit
Plaintiff to return to the standing issue with citations to
new cases or additional legal arguments”),
aff'd, No. 16-5853, 2017 WL 6398013 (6th Cir.
July 11, 2017).
does not argue that any factor under Rule 59 would justify
reconsideration. He does not identify an intervening change
in controlling law or newly discovered evidence, nor does ...