United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
MONDRIC F. BRADLEY, #46406 PETITIONER
MARSHALL FISHER RESPONDENT
P. Jordan III CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Petitioner Mondric F.
Bradley's Response , filed February 5, 2018, and
Memorandum in Support , filed March 7, 2018. Liberally
construed, the Response asks the Court to reconsider its
January 22, 2018 Order . And because Bradley filed this
motion within 28 days of that Order, it will be decided under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Shepherd v.
Int'l Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 n.1 (5th Cir.
2004) (noting that motions for reconsideration filed within
28 days of court's order are considered motions to alter
or amend under Rule 59(e)); see also Hernandez v.
Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 427 n.27 (5th Cir. 2011) (noting
that Court must consider the “substance of the relief .
. . not the label” to determine the “true
nature” of the pleading).
consideration of the record in this case and relevant legal
authority, the Court finds that Bradley's Motion  for
relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
should be denied.
filed his petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 on June 28, 2016. Pet.  at 1. On July 22,
2016, the Court transferred the case to the Fifth Circuit as
a successive § 2254 habeas application pursuant to
In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 1997). Order .
On September 29, 2016, the Fifth Circuit denied Bradley
authorization to proceed with his successive petition in this
Court. In re Bradley, No. 16-60509 (5th Cir. Sept.
29, 2016). Bradley then filed a Motion to Clarify  on
December 18, 2017. Pet'r's Mot. . The Court
entered an Order  on January 22, 2018, denying that
Motion . Order . That Order  stated that
“[b]ecause the instant civil action is closed as a
result of the transfer , this Court is without
jurisdictional bases to consider the merits of
Petitioner's instant Motion .” Id. The
present motion asserts that the Fifth Circuit incorrectly
ruled on Bradley's successive petition and asks this
Court to consider the merits of his habeas petition.
Pet'r's Resp.  at 1-3.
59(e) motion filed in a § 2254 case may be considered a
second or successive motion for habeas relief if it asserts
or reasserts a substantive claim to set aside a
petitioner's state conviction. Williams v.
Thaler, 602 F.3d 291, 303-04 (5th Cir. 2010) (finding
that a Rule 59(e) motion may be construed as a second or
successive § 2254) (citing Gonzalez v. Crosby,
545 U.S. 524, 526 (2005)). But the Court may consider
Bradley's challenge under Rule 59(e) if he is
“merely assert[ing] that a previous ruling which
precluded a merits determination was in error.”
Id. at 305 (citing Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at
extent Bradley is requesting that the Court grant him relief
from the Order  that denied his Motion to Clarify ,
the Court will consider Bradley's request as a Motion for
Relief pursuant to Rule 59(e). The Court may relieve a party
from an order under Rule 59(e) if the party shows
“either a manifest error of law or fact or . . . newly
discovered evidence.” Rosenzweig v. Azurix
Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). The motion
“cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and
should, have been made before the judgment issued.”
Id. Here, Bradley presents no allegations that
satisfy the requirements for obtaining relief under Rule
59(e). Therefore, his request that the Court grant him relief
from the Order  is denied.
extent Bradley is reasserting substantive claims to set aside
his conviction and sentence, the Court finds his Rule 59(e)
motion to be nothing more than an attempt to proceed with a
successive habeas petition without the required authorization
from the Fifth Circuit. See Williams, 602 F.3d at
305. As the Court previously explained, see Order
, Bradley may not proceed with this successive habeas
petition in this Court without authorization from the Fifth
Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Bradley
does not present any documentation to demonstrate that the
Fifth Circuit has granted him such authorization.
if Bradley is asking this Court to grant him relief from the
Fifth Circuit's decision, this Court lacks authority to
review decisions from the Fifth Circuit. Bradley's
request therefore is denied.
THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner's Response  is
construed as a Motion for Relief pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e).
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion  for Relief
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) is denied.
IT IS ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability will not
issue in the denial of Petitioner's Motion for Relief
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure