Marlow v. Clarendon City of et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 39 motion for reconsideration and denying 40 motion to alter or amend. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 10/16/2020. (jbh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
JOHN MARLOW
v.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-00666-BSM

CITY OF CLARENDON, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration [Doc. No. 39] is denied. John Marlow’s
motion to alter or amend [Doc. No. 40] is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendants argue that the denial of summary judgment on Marlow’s Arkansas
Whistle-Blower Act (“AWBA”) claim should be reconsidered. They argue that the denial
was based on a misunderstanding of which incident of officer Derrick Times’s misconduct
Marlow reported to Chief Rash in a written statement. Mot. Recon. ¶¶ 3–6, Doc. No. 39.
They provide a written statement that Marlow gave Rash, which concerned a verbal alteration
between Times and another man who knew Times’s girlfriend. Mot. Recon, Ex. 1.
Marlow responds that he had notified Chief Rash of officer Times’s misconduct
previously, and that he was terminated only after sharing dashcam footage of Times’s
misconduct with someone outside of the Clarendon Police Department (“CPD”). Pl.’s Mot.
Alter ¶ 2, Doc. No. 40 (citing John Marlow Audio R., 12:4–5, Doc. No. 28-3).
Marlow also argues that the grant of summary judgment on his free speech claims
should be reconsidered. He argues that the CPD’s mistaken belief that he gave the dashcam
footage to City Council, coupled with his termination, gives rise to First Amendment
violations. Pl.’s Mot. Alter ¶ 4.

II. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for reconsideration is appropriate “to correct manifest errors of law or fact
or to present newly discovered evidence.” Arnold v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721
(8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir.
1988)). A motion for reconsideration is not, however, the proper vehicle to “introduce new
evidence that could have been adduced during pendency” of the motion at issue, nor is it the
appropriate method to introduce new legal theories. Hagerman, 839 F.2d at 414.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is denied. Although they have provided
Marlow’s report of a separate incident of Times’s misconduct, a genuine dispute of fact
exists as to whether Marlow gave “reasonable notice” of Times’s use of excessive force.
Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-603(a)(2); see Pl.’s Mot. Alter ¶ 4. A dispute of fact does not rise
to a “manifest error” of fact. Arnold, 627 F.3d at 721.
Marlow’s motion for reconsideration of the grant of summary judgment on his free
speech claims is denied. It is undisputed that Marlow was terminated for sharing the
dashcam video, not for what he communicated to anyone about it. See Rumsfeld v. Forum
for Acad. & Inst. Rights, 547 U.S. 47, 60 (2006).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for reconsideration [Doc. No. 39] is
denied. Marlow’s motion to alter or amend [Doc. No. 40] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2