Banister v. Davis

Whether and under what circumstances a timely Rule 59(e) motion should be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U. S. 524 (2005).

Petitioner was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to thirty years imprisonment. After the district court denied his habeas corpus petition and Certificate of Appealability, Petitioner filed a motion to Amend of Alter the Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e) which was also denied. Petitioner’s motion and Certificate of Appealability was then appealed to the United States Court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court denied the Rule 59(e) motion, characterizing it as a successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), and therefore not timely filed with that court. Petitioner argues that this decision highlights a circuit split of whether a Rule 59(e) motion may be considered a successive habeas petition. Petitioner further argues that this extends the rule of Gonzalez beyond its holding and that Rule 59(e) is not a reexamination of the merits of a case, but merely a tolling function while an appeal is pending.