Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Jewell

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

January 17, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
WILLIAM A. JEWELL

          HORNSBY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          MEMORANDUM RULING

          S. MAURICE HICKS, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court are Defendant William A. Jewell's (“Jewell”) (1) “Request to Reserve” (Record Document 782) this Court's denial (Record Document 780) of his “Motion to Amend” his supplemental Memorandum in Support of his § 2255 Motion (Record Document 779) and (2) “Motion to Correct Error under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)” (Record Document 783), seeking to correct an alleged error in the same decision by the Court (Record Document 780). Both Motions are hereby DENIED.

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Jewell, a federal inmate convicted of conspiracy to distribute child pornography, filed his original Motion to Vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on October 10, 2014. See Record Document 734. On October 29, 2014, the Court granted Jewell leave to file a Memorandum in Support of the § 2255 Motion no later than December 1, 2014. See Record Document 741. On November 24, 2014, the Court granted Jewell leave to file a Memorandum in Support of the § 2255 Motion no later than January 5, 2015. See Record Document 747. Jewell filed his first Memorandum in Support of his § 2255 Motion on December 5, 2014. See Record Document 749.

         Jewell then filed a “Motion Requesting to Reserve Filing Amended § 2255 Motion” on January 5, 2015. See Record Document 753. On January 29, 2015, the Court granted the Motion without setting a deadline for the filing of the amended Memorandum in Support of his § 2255 Motion. See Record Document 756. On March 17, 2015, the Court granted the Government's request for an extension of time to respond to Jewell's § 2255 Motion, granting the Government an extension of 30 days from the date Jewell files his amended Memorandum in Support of his § 2255 Motion. See Record Document 761. Jewell filed a supplemental Memorandum in Support of his § 2255 Motion (titled “Motion to Supplement 28 USC § 2255 Motion”) on May 6, 2016. See Record Document 777.

         On December 16, 2016, Jewell filed a “Motion to Amend” his supplemental Memorandum in Support of his § 2255 Motion. See Record Document 779. On December 22, 2016, the Court issued a Memorandum Ruling and Order denying Jewell's “Motion to Amend” and ordering the Government to respond to Jewell's § 2255 Motion by February 20, 2017. See Record Documents 780 and 781. The Court explained that Jewell already had two Memoranda in support of his § 2255 Motion on file with the Court, one of which (Record Document 777-1) made essentially the same arguments in 26 pages as its proposed 77-page supplement (Record Document 779-1). See Record Document 780. Citing to Local Rule 7.4, which states that Memoranda in support of motions before the Court “may not be supplemented except with leave of court first obtained, ” the Court declined to exercise its discretion to allow Jewell to file a third Memorandum in support of his § 2255 Motion, particularly when it regurgitates essentially the same arguments as his second. See id. In response to this ruling, Jewell filed the instant “Request to Reserve” (Record Document 782) and “Motion to Correct Error under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)” (Record Document 783).

         ANALYSIS

         A. Jewell's “Request to Reserve” (Record Document 782)

         In his “Request to Reserve, ” Jewell “requests that this honorable court grant him the right to reserve the Order (Record Doc. 780) . . . as appellate issue.” Record Document 782. He then argues that the Court's denial of his Motion to Amend was erroneous. See id. Jewell's “Request to Reserve” (Record Document 782) is DENIED. Whether an issue is preserved for appellate review is a question for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upon appeal from a final order of this Court on Jewell's § 2255 Motion. To the extent that this “Request to Reserve” may be seen as seeking permission for an interlocutory appeal from the Court's denial of his Motion to Amend under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), that request is DENIED because the Court finds that the matters raised in the Request do not involve “a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion [or] that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”

         B. Jewell's “Motion to Correct Error under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)” (Record Document 783)

         In his “Motion to Correct Error under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), ” Jewell asks the court to correct the same alleged error in its Memorandum Ruling and Order (Record Documents 780 and 781) denying his Motion to Amend. See Record Document 783.

         Jewell argues that Local Rule 7.4 as applied in the Court's Memorandum Ruling and Order is invalid under Fed.R.Civ.P. 83, which provides authority for the promulgation of such Local Rules. See id. He also argues that the Court's decision to deny his Motion to Amend was “plain error, ” and that leave to amend should be freely given under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. Id.

         As a threshold matter, the Court notes that this Motion could also be construed as a request for an interlocutory appeal, and therefore could be denied for the same reason stated above with respect to Jewell's “Request to Reserve, ” see Section A, supra. However, the Court will address the Motion as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) Motion, seeking to obtain relief from the Court's Order denying his Motion to Amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) for “any other reason that justifies relief.” This subsection, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.