Nunn et al v. Arkansas Department of Human Services et al

Filing 46

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)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION KIDSQUEST, INC. V. PLAINTIFF 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 DEFENDANTS ORDER 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 to Plaintiff. 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 -2-

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?