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.

Arnaud v. Vannoy

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

November 28, 2017

TROY ARNAUD
v.
DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN

         SECTION: “G” (5)

          ORDER

          NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Petitioner Troy Arnaud's (“Petitioner”) “Request for Reconsideration of Judgment, ”[1] wherein he requests relief from the Court's August 15, 2017 Order and Judgment, dismissing with prejudice his petition for federal habeas corpus relief.[2] Having considered the motion, the record, and the applicable law, for the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motion.

         I. Background

         On April 7, 2016, Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that he was denied the right to testify at trial and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.[3] On June 29, 2016, the State filed a response, arguing that the petition should be dismissed with prejudice.[4] On March 14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the petition be dismissed with prejudice.[5] This Court adopted the Report and Recommendation on August 15, 2017, [6] and dismissed the petition with prejudice.[7]

         On September 11, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration.[8] The State did not file a response to Petitioner's motion. On September 26, 2017, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal.[9]

         II. Parties' Arguments

         A. Petitioner's Arguments in Support of Request for Reconsideration

         Petitioner moves the Court for relief from its August 15, 2017 Order and Judgment dismissing his federal habeas petition with prejudice.[10] First, Petitioner contends that the Court erred in dismissing his claim that he was denied his constitutional right to testify at trial.[11]Petitioner asserts that the prosecutor threatened to charge his wife as an accessory-after-the-fact if he testified at trial, and Petitioner did not testify at trial because of this threat.[12] Petitioner argues that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing because he raised a factual dispute in the petition, which if resolved in his favor would entitle him to relief on his claim.[13] Therefore, Petitioner contends that the Court erred in dismissing this claim.[14]

         Second, Petitioner addresses his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.[15] Petitioner concedes that the Court correctly dismissed his claim that his trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to make an opening statement, failing to properly cross-examine a witness, and failing to object to improper bolstering.[16] However, Petitioner asserts that the Court erred in dismissing his claim that his trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to object to testimony of Sergeant David Spera.[17] Specifically, Petitioner contends that his trial counsel should have objected to testimony the prosecutor elicited from Sergeant Spera because it was irrelevant and baseless.[18]Petitioner also argues that the Court erred in dismissing his claim that his trial counsel performed ineffectively by placing Petitioner at the crime scene during her closing argument.[19] Petitioner asserts that the closing statement “essentially served as a concession of guilt.”[20] Accordingly, Petitioner moves the Court for relief from its prior judgment.[21]

         B. The State's Response

         The State did not file a response to Petitioner's motion, despite receiving electronic notice of the filing.

         III. Law and Analysis

         The Fifth Circuit has noted that while the Federal Rules “do not recognize a ‘motion for reconsideration' in haec verba, ” it has consistently recognized that such a motion may challenge a judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b), depending on the time of the filing.[22] If such a motion is filed within 28 days after entry of the judgment from which relief is being sought, the motion will be treated as a motion to reconsider under Rule 59(e).[23] Here, Petitioner's motion was brought within 28 days after entry of the August 15, 2017 Judgment.[24]Accordingly, the Court considers the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

         “A Rule 59(e) motion is a motion that calls into question the correctness of a judgment.”[25]District courts have “considerable discretion in deciding whether to reopen a case under Rule 59(e).”[26] In exercising this discretion, courts must carefully balance the interests of justice with the need for finality.[27] This Courts generally consider four factors in deciding motions for reconsideration under the Rule 59(e) standard:

(1) the motion is necessary to correct a manifest error of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;
(2) the movant presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence;
(3) the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest ...

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.