Nathaniel McCray v. Charles Truitt, Warden, Stateville Correctional Center

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Nathaniel McCray’s pro se motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment denying his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court rejected McCray’s arguments concerning ineffective assistance of counsel, an alleged ex parte jury-deliberation discussion, moot claims, and procedural default. The court concluded that McCray identified neither newly discovered evidence nor a manifest error of law or fact.

Holdings

1. The motion to alter or amend judgment was properly denied because McCray identified neither newly discovered evidence nor a manifest error of law or fact.
2. McCray was not entitled to reconsideration of the denial of his ineffective-assistance claims concerning the allegedly unlawful arrest and failure to challenge the search warrant because his arguments applied an improper de novo standard and repeated arguments already rejected.
3. The affidavit attached to the Rule 59(e) motion did not warrant reconsideration of the denial of Claim 6 because it was McCray's own account of what an attorney supposedly would testify to, rather than an affidavit from that attorney, and it did not undermine the state court's finding that one of McCray's attorneys was present and objected.
4. The court did not err in treating Claims 7 through 10 as moot because the aggravated-kidnapping conviction and sentence had been vacated, leaving no meaningful relief that the federal court could provide on the claims.
5. The court correctly treated Claims 11 and 13 as procedurally defaulted because the Illinois Appellate Court relied on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7), an independent and adequate state ground, when it deemed the claims waived.

Questions Presented

1. Whether McCray demonstrated newly discovered evidence or a manifest error of law or fact warranting relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
2. Whether the court erred in denying habeas relief on the ineffective-assistance claims concerning McCray's arrest and suppression arguments.
3. Whether the affidavit submitted with the Rule 59(e) motion warranted reconsideration of the court's ruling on the alleged ex parte jury-deliberation hearing.
4. Whether the court erred in treating the verdict-form and related ineffective-assistance claims as moot.
5. Whether the court erred in treating the claims concerning sending the door jamb to the jury and the accountability instruction as procedurally defaulted on an independent and adequate state ground.

Disposition

other