Nunn et al v. Arkansas Department of Human Services et al
ORDER denying 43 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying 43 Motion for Relief from Judgment under FRCP 60(b). Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on August 7, 2013. (cnn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
CASE NO. 10-CV-1063
JOHN SELIG, in his official capacity as Director
of the Arkansas Department of Human Services; and
DR. JAMES GREEN, in his Official Capacity as
Director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities
of the Arkansas Department of Human Services
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and for Relief from
Judgment. (ECF No. 43). Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its order that dismissed
Plaintiff’s due process claims. (ECF No. 42). Defendants have responded to the motions. (ECF No.
45). The motion is ripe for the Court’s consideration.
“‘Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407,
414 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246 (7th Cir. 1987));
see Fed R. Civ. P. 59(e). Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) “permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but
it ‘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.’” Exxon Shipping Co. V. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n. 5,
128 S. Ct. 2605, 171 L. Ed. 2d 570 (2008) (quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2810.1, pp. 127-28 (2d ed. 1995)).
After reviewing the motion, it is clear that Plaintiff simply disagrees with the court’s ruling.
The Court cannot find that failing to grant the Rule 59(e) motion would result in manifest injustice
Under such circumstances, relief under Rule 59(e) is unwarranted. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is DENIED.
As with Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e), relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is not available for mere
disagreement with the court’s decision. Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 1999). It
is also not a mechanism for reconsideration of issues of law previously rejected by the court.
Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 862 F.2d 161, 170 (8th Cir. 1988). Here, Plaintiff asks the Court to
reconsider the legal issue of whether Plaintiff stated a procedural due process claim in its complaint.
Because this issue was already addressed in an earlier ruling, Plaintiff’s motion is not authorized by
Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) “provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon an
adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.” U.S. v. Young, 806 F.2d 805, 806 (8th Cir. 1986).
No exceptional circumstances have been shown in this case to justify relief under Rule 60.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 7th day of August, 2013.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?