Despaigne v. Thompson, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DMSION
ROBERT CARLOS CAMAJUANI
DESPAIGNE, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
V. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25-5305
RAYMOND THOMPSON, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On July 17, 2026, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Petitioner's
Habeas Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.1 Pending before the court is Petitioner's
Pro Se Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) ("Petitioner's Motion
to Amend Judgment'') (Docket Entry No. 28). Petitioner asks the court to reconsider its holding that
his current detention is lawful. 2 Respondents filed a response in opposition on September 25, 2026,
and Petitioner filed a reply on October 5, 2026.3
Rule 59( e) "serve[s] the narrow purpose ofallowing a party to correct manifest errors oflaw
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Waltman v. International Paper Co,, 875 F .2d 468,
473 (5th Cir. 1989). "A manifest error oflaw or fact must be one that is plain and indisputable, and
1 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Docket Entry No. 26, p. 5; Final Judgment, Docket Entry
No. 27, p. 1. For purposes of identification, all page numbers refer to the pagination imprinted at
the top of the page by the court's Electronic Case Filing system.
2Petitioner's Motion to Amend Judgment, Docket Entry No. 28, pp. 2-3.
3Response in Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, Docket Entry
No. 3 O; Petitioner's Pro Se Reply to the Government's Opposition to His Rule 59( e) Motion, Docket
Entry No. 31.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
October 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05305 Document 32 Filed 10/15/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence in the record."
Walker v. HongHuaAmerica, LLC, Civ. Action No. 4:12-cv-00134, 2012 WL 1898892, at •1 (S.D.
Tex. May 23, 2012). The Fifth Circuit has explained that Rule 59 reconsideration "is an
extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly." Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473,
479 (5th Cir. 2004). As such, to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration, a movant must
show: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not
previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice."
In re Benjamin Moore & Co,, 318 F.3d 626,629 (5th Cir. 2002). A Rule 59(e) motion "'calls into
question the correctness of a judgment,"' it is not ''the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal
theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment"
Templet, 367 F.3d at 479 (quoting In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571,581 (5th Cir. 2002)).
Petitioner's arguments were raised and rejected in the court's Memorandum Opinion and
Order (Docket Entry No. 26). His pending motion falls far short of satisfying the requirement for
relief under Rule 59(e ). The reasons for which Petitioner seeks reconsideration neither argue nor
show a manifest error of law or fact, an intervening change in controlling law, or the availability of
new evidence not previously available. See In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d at 629.
For the reasons explained above, Petitioner's Pro Se Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
Pursuant to Fed. R Civ. P. 59(e) (Docket Entry No. 28) is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 15th day of 2�
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-
Case 4:25-cv-05305 Document 32 Filed 10/15/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2