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 pleading docketed as “Response in
Opposition ‘Objection'”  to the
Court's Order  entered on October 11, 2018. Bradley
requests in the relief portion of his Response  that the
Court reconsider its Order  entered on October 11, 2018,
pursuant to “Rule 59(B).” Pet'r's Resp.
 at 3. Because Bradley filed this Response 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 the
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
consideration of the record in this case and relevant legal
authority, the Court finds that Bradley's Motion  for
relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure should be denied.
filed this Petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 on June 28, 2016. Pet.  at 1. On July 22,
2016, this case was transferred to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals as a successive § 2254 habeas application
pursuant to In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364 (5th Cir.
1997). Order . The Fifth Circuit on September 29, 2016,
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
Bradley's 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 Bradley's
instant Motion .” Id. Bradley filed a
Response  on February 5, 2018, and a Memorandum in
Support  on March 7, 2018. The Court entered an Order
 on March 19, 2018, denying Bradley's request for
reconsideration of the Order  entered January 22, 2018.
Order  at 1-4. Bradley filed a Notice of Appeal  on
April 23, 2018, appealing the Court's Order  entered
March 19, 2018. The Fifth Circuit on May 30, 2018, dismissed
Bradley's appeal for failure to pay the filing fee.
Bradley v. Hall, No. 18-60303 (5th Cir. May 30,
2018). Bradley then filed a Motion for the Recall in and
Vacation of the Mandate Reinstating Appeal  on September
12, 2018, and Clarification  on October 5, 2018. On
October 11, 2018, the Court denied Bradley's Motion 
and Clarification  stating that “this Court does
not have jurisdiction to review a decision by the Fifth
Circuit.” Order  at 1.
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 state
conviction. Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291,
303-304 (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
to the extent Bradley is “merely assert[ing] that a
previous ruling which precluded a merits determination was in
error, ” the Court may consider his challenge under
Rule 59(e). Id. at 305 (citing Gonzalez,
545 U.S. at 532 n.4).
Court will consider Bradley's Response  as a Motion
for Relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure because it does not assert or reassert a
substantive claim to set aside his state conviction. Rule
59(e) provides that the Court may relieve a party from an
Order if the party “clearly establish[es] either a
manifest error of law or fact or . . . present[s] newly
discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments
which could, and should, have been made before the judgment
issued.” Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d
854, 863 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations and quotations omitted).
Bradley does not present any allegations to satisfy the
requirements for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e).
Therefore, Bradley's request that the Court grant him
relief from the Order  is denied.
THEREFORE, ORDERED that Bradley's Response  is
construed as a Motion for Relief pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 59(e).
FURTHER ORDERED that Bradley's Motion  for Relief
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) is denied.
IS FINALLY ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability will
not issue in the denial of Bradley's Motion for Relief
pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil