United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER
OR AMEND JUDGMENT
C. BRACK, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court on the June 14, 2019 letter from
Movant, Maurice Williams (Doc. 10), which the Court construes
as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P.
59(e). The Court will deny the motion.
21, 2019, the Court received a handwritten letter from Mr.
Williams. (CV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 94.) Mr. Williams's letter
states that he is “challenging the Conspiracy to Commit
Interference With Commerce by Robbery Hobbs Act (ct. 1&2)
is not a crime of violence.” (CV Doc. 1 at 1; CR Doc.
94 at 1.) The relief Mr. Williams seeks is correction of his
sentence, and the Court construed the handwritten letter as a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See, e.g.,
Peach v. United States, 468 F.3d 1269, 1270 (10th
Cir. 2006). The Court entered its Memorandum Opinion
and Order and its Judgment on May 23, 2019, dismissing the
letter as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255
motion. (Docs. 3; 4.)
Williams filed his current Motion on June 14, 2019. (Doc.
10.) He asks the Court to “reconsider” its
dismissal of his May 21, 2019 letter as a second or
successive § 2255 motion. (Id. at 1-2.) Because
the motion was filed within 28 days after entry of the
Memorandum Opinion and Order and the Judgment, the Court
construes the request for reconsideration as a motion to
alter or amend a judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
Motion to reconsider, Mr. Williams contends the Court
misunderstood his May 21, 2019 filing. He claims that he
intended it to be a letter asking the Court to order his
attorney to communicate with him, not a § 2255 motion.
(See Id. at 1.) Similarly, he states that his June
14, 2019 letter asking for reconsideration is a
“letter, (not motion).” (Id.)
However, neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permit a request to the
Court to be made by letter. Instead, any request to the Court
for an order mandatorily must be made by motion.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) (providing that
“[a] request for a court order must be made by
motion”); Fed. R. Crim. P. 47(a) (providing that
“[a] party applying to the court for an order must do
so by motion”). Therefore, to rule on Mr.
Williams's requests in his May 21, 2019 and June 14, 2019
filings, the Court must construe those filings as motions.
there is no attorney that has been retained, appointed, or
entered an appearance on behalf of Mr. Williams for purposes
of collateral review. When his May 21, 2019 letter was
docketed, the Court's CM/ECF system electronically
notified his prior CJA counsel of the filing. However, the
CJA counsel appointed to represent Mr. Williams for the
criminal proceedings in CR 13-02975 RB is no longer obligated
or authorized to represent him on collateral review.
Therefore, the Court cannot order any counsel to communicate
with Mr. Williams.
warranting a motion to reconsider under Rule 59(e) include
(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new
evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Brumark
Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir.
1995). A motion for reconsideration is proper where the court
has clearly misapprehended the facts, a party's position,
or the controlling law, but is not appropriate to revisit
issues already addressed in prior filings. See Van Skiver
v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991);
Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012
(10th Cir. 2000).
Williams does not present any intervening change in the
controlling law or new evidence. There is no need to
reconsider to prevent clear error. His May 21, 2019 letter
expressly states that he is “challenging the Conspiracy
to Commit Interference With Commerce by Robbery Hobbs Act
(ct. 1&2) is not a crime of violence.” (CV Doc. 1
at 1; CR Doc. 94 at 1.) Mr. Williams is claiming that his
sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution and
laws of the United States and, as such, his letter filing is
properly treated as a motion for collateral review under 28
U.S.C. § 2255(a). Peach v. United States, 468
F.3d 1269, 1270 (10th Cir. 2006). Last,
reconsideration is not necessary to prevent manifest
injustice. Regardless of this Court's treatment of his
letter as a second or successive § 2255 motion, before
Mr. Williams seeks further collateral review of his criminal
sentence in this Court, he must petition the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for authorization to
proceed. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
ORDERED that the June 14, 2019 letter from Mr. Williams (Doc.
10), which the Court construes as a motion to alter or amend