NELVA GONZALES RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT
Final judgment dismissing Petitioner's application for § 2254 relief and denying Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability was entered September 14, 2015 (D.E. 38, 39). Pending is Petitioner's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, filed September 28, 2015 (D.E. 40).
A motion which challenges a prior judgment on the merits is treated either as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59 or a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Ford v. Elsbury, 32 F.3d 931, 937 n. 7 (5 Cir. 1994). If the motion is filed within twenty-eight (28) days of entry of judgment the motion falls under Rule 59. Id. If it is filed after that, it falls under Rule 60(b). Id. In this case, final judgment was entered on September 14, 2015 (D.E. 39), and Petitioner's motion was filed on September 28, 2015 (D.E. 40), within twenty-eight (28) days of entry of final judgment, and thus is considered properly under Rule 59(e).
Effective December 1, 2009, FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) was amended, increasing the time limit for filing a motion to alter or amend the judgment from ten (10) to twenty-eight (28) days. --------
"A Rule 59(e) motion is a motion that calls into question the correctness of a judgment. Rule 59(e) is properly invoked 'to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.'" In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989)).
Petitioner has failed to cite to any manifest errors of law or fact, and has presented no new evidence. He simply repeats the arguments made in his earlier pleadings. Petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment (D.E. 40) is denied.
ORDERED this 1 day of October, 2015.
/s/_________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE