UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Sedrick Mitchell, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Jeffrey Woods, 

Respondent. 

________________________________/

Case No. 15-10764 

Judith E. Levy 

United States District Judge 

Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND 

JUDGMENT [29] 

On December 20, 2016, the Court denied Sedrick Mitchell’s petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus which challenged his Michigan convictions. 

(ECF No. 16.) Mitchell appealed, and the Sixth Circuit denied a 

certificate of appealability. Mitchell v. Woods, No. 17-1013 (6th Cir. June 

26, 2017). 

Mitchell subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment, 

asserting a new substantive claim challenging his state convictions. (ECF 

No. 22.) The Court transferred the motion to the Sixth Circuit under 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b) because it amounted to a second or successive habeas 

Case 5:15-cv-10764-JEL-APP ECF No. 32, PageID.1937 Filed 01/31/24 Page 1 of 4
2 

petition. (ECF No. 28.) The Sixth Circuit thereafter determined that the 

motion was correctly transferred, and that Mitchell failed to demonstrate 

entitlement to review of his new claim. In re Mitchell, No. 23-1579 (6th 

Cir. Oct. 6, 2023). 

Before the Court is Mitchell’s motion to alter or amend the order 

transferring his motion for relief from judgment to the Sixth Circuit. 

(ECF No. 29, PageID.1927.) Mitchell asserts that the Court erred in 

transferring his motion as a successive petition because the motion 

properly challenged the Court’s authority to adjudicate his original 

habeas petition. (Id. at PageID.1929.) 

A motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59 “may be granted if there is a clear error of law, newly 

discovered evidence, [and] an intervening change in controlling law, or to 

prevent manifest injustice.” GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters, 178 

F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). “A Rule 59 

motion ‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments 

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

judgment.’” Brumley v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 909 F.3d 834, 841 (6th 

Case 5:15-cv-10764-JEL-APP ECF No. 32, PageID.1938 Filed 01/31/24 Page 2 of 4
3 

Cir. 2018) (quoting Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486, n.5 

(2008) (additional quotation omitted)). 

The Court will deny Mitchell’s motion. Contrary to his argument, 

the Sixth Circuit conclusively determined that his motion for relief from 

judgment was properly treated as a second or successive habeas petition. 

See In re Mitchell, No. 23-1579, slip op. at *2. The Sixth Circuit found 

that despite his allegations, “Mitchell’s Rule60(b) motion did not attack 

any ‘defect in the integrity’ of the federal habeas proceedings,” permitting 

the Court to adjudicate his new claim. Id. The law-of-the-case doctrine 

“precludes reconsideration of issues decided at an earlier stage of the 

case.” Yeschick v. Mineta, 675 F.3d 622, 633 (6th Cir. 2012) (internal 

citations and quotations omitted); United States v. Moored, 38 F.3d 1419, 

1421 (6th Cir. 1994). Because the arguments raised in Mitchell’s motion 

were already rejected by the Sixth Circuit, his motion to alter or amend 

the judgment is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 31, 2024 s/Judith E. Levy 

 Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:15-cv-10764-JEL-APP ECF No. 32, PageID.1939 Filed 01/31/24 Page 3 of 4
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 31, 2024. 

s/William Barkholz 

WILLIAM BARKHOLZ 

Case Manager 

Case 5:15-cv-10764-JEL-APP ECF No. 32, PageID.1940 Filed 01/31/24 Page 4 of 4