Opinion
CRIM. 5:19-CR-188-KKC-MAS
08-14-2024
MICHAEL MCNEW, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
KAREN K. CALDWELL UNTIED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on petitioner Michael McNew's motion to reconsider the Court's October 2, 2023 Order denying his motion to compel the government to file a Rule 35(b) motion to reduce his sentence. (DE 75.)
A motion to reconsider may be granted for a limited only limited reasons: “(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.” Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010). A plaintiff cannot use a Rule 59 motion or a post-judgment Rule 15 motion "to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before judgment was issued." Id. (quoting Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)). Neither may a party use a 59(e) motion to relitigate issues previously considered and resolved by the Court. See, e.g., Franklin v. Franklin County, 2023 WL 4406884, *2 (E.D. Ky. July 7, 2023)
In his motion, McNew does not point to any grounds appropriate for a motion to reconsider. Rather, he reiterates his arguments from his original motion. Accordingly, McNew's motion to reconsider (DE 75) is DENIED. Additionally, McNew's motion for a ruling on the motion to reconsider (DE 81) is DENIED AS MOOT.