Philippeaux v. United States
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:18-cv-05974
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Philippeaux v. United States, Judge Abrams denied Philippeaux’s motion to reconsider an earlier order denying his post-conviction motion.
The ruling directly affected Philander Philippeaux’s request to alter or amend the earlier order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; the United States remained the respondent.
What happened
In Philippeaux v. United States, Philander Philippeaux asked the court to alter or amend its March 9, 2020 order under Rule 59(e). That earlier order had adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied his motion challenging his conviction under federal law.
Philippeaux argued that the court had overlooked controlling decisions and facts, including his claim that the government used a fake phone number and fraudulently obtained jurisdiction and venue. He also argued that the court had overlooked the law governing his post-conviction proceeding and other motions.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the motion. The court found that Philippeaux had identified no change in controlling law or new evidence and had not shown a clear error or serious unfairness. The clerk was directed to close the motion and mail Philippeaux a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Philippeaux v. United States · No. 1:18-cv-05974
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 20, 2020
Background
On March 16, 2020, Philander Philippeaux moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the court’s March 9, 2020 order. The earlier order adopted a January 7, 2020 report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Netburn and denied Philippeaux’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, along with his collateral motions.
Arguments
Philippeaux argued that the court had overlooked controlling decisions and factual matters. He pointed to his earlier allegation that the government had used a “fake phone number” and had fraudulently obtained jurisdiction and venue in the underlying criminal case. He also asserted that the court had overlooked the law governing the post-conviction proceeding, § 2255, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and is generally available only when there has been an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence has become available, or correction is needed to address a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. A Rule 59(e) motion is not a vehicle for rearguing issues already decided.
The court found that Philippeaux did not identify an intervening change in controlling law or new evidence, and did not clearly show a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court had specifically addressed his argument about allegedly false phone records and had found no clear error in the conclusion that jurisdiction and venue were proper and were not fraudulently obtained. The court also found that the earlier order and report applied the correct legal standards and that Philippeaux identified no controlling decisions or data the court had overlooked.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Philippeaux’s motion to alter or amend the March 9 order under Rule 59(e). The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 39 and mail a copy of the order to Philippeaux.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.