Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-6_20-cv-02020/USCOURTS-alnd-6_20-cv-02020-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

JASPER DIVISION

CLAYTON ANTWAIN )

SHANKLIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) 6:20-cv-2020-LSC

)

)

JEFFERSON DUNN, )

Commissioner, Alabama )

Department of Corrections, et al. )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner, Clayton Antwain Shanklin’s, 

Rule 59 Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s memorandum of opinion and 

order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from his state court 

conviction for capital murder and death sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 

45.) For the reasons that follow, the motion is due to be denied.

II. Standard of Review

Shanklin’s motion is timely filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

59(e), which allows a party to file a motion to amend or alter the judgment of a court 

with 28 days after entry of that judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Rule 59 “was 

FILED

 2024 Dec-19 AM 11:01

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 6:20-cv-02020-LSC Document 46 Filed 12/19/24 Page 1 of 3
2

adopted to ‘mak[e] clear that the district court possesses the power’ to rectify its own 

mistakes in the period immediately following the entry of judgment.” White v. New 

Hampshire Dep’t of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982). “The decision to 

alter or amend a judgment is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” 

Drago v. Jenne, 453 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). “The only 

grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest 

errors of law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) 

(quotation marks and internal brackets omitted). A manifest error of law is the 

“disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Oto v. 

Metro. Life Ins., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). “A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise 

argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of 

judgment.” King, 500 F.3d at 1343 (quotation marks and internal brackets omitted). 

III. Discussion

Shanklin contends that the Court’s judgment contains manifest errors of law 

and fact with regard to its resolution of many of his claims. Shanklin also contends 

that even if this Court declines to reconsider its judgment and grant habeas relief, it 

should at the least grant a certificate of appealability. 

This Court has thoroughly reviewed Shanklin’s arguments, but the Court finds 

that his motion is an attempt to relitigate arguments that the Court has already 

Case 6:20-cv-02020-LSC Document 46 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 3
3

considered and addressed in its Memorandum of Opinion and Order denying his 

petition. The Court thus concludes that these arguments do not justify altering or 

amending the Court’s judgment or granting a certificate of appealability. 

IV. Conclusion

Having considered Shanklin’s arguments and for the above reasons, it is 

ordered that Shanklin’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (doc. 45) is hereby 

DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED on December 19, 2024.

_____________________________

L. Scott Coogler

United States District Judge

160704

Case 6:20-cv-02020-LSC Document 46 Filed 12/19/24 Page 3 of 3