Bradford v. Singleton et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 17 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on June 29, 2017. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
WILLIAM A. BRADFORD, JR.
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:17-cv-4027

SERGEANT SUSAN HANSON

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff William A. Bradford, Jr.’s Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment Under Rule 59(e). (ECF No. 17). The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case arises from allegedly inadequate medical care provided to
Plaintiff by staff at the Hempstead County Detention Center (“HCDC”). Plaintiff alleges that on
March 17, Defendant Susan Hanson drew contaminated insulin from a broken bottle into four
syringes and placed them in the refrigerator, saying that she would try to save them for Plaintiff
to use to treat his diabetes. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Hanson reused the same syringe to
administer the contaminated insulin to him over the course of several days, resulting in swollen
knots forming at the injection sites.

Plaintiff alleges further that Defendant Hanson was

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, and that he suffered cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment as a result of the inadequate medical care he
received.
On April 27, 2017, the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for
the Western District of Arkansas, filed a Report and Recommendation in which he found that
Plaintiff failed to state a claim as to Defendant Hanson and then-Defendants Sherriff James A.
Singleton; Chief Deputy T.P. Mickey Atkinson; Jail Administrator Johnny Godbolt; Assistant
Administrator Heath Ross; Jailer Eric Garner; Jailer Vermillion; and Jailer Kyle Shelby. Judge

Bryant recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s official-capacity and individual-capacity
claims against all Defendants.

On May 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his

complaint, as well as objections to the Report and Recommendation. 1 On June 21, 2017, the
Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend only as to his claims against Defendant Hanson, 2 and
adopted the Report and Recommendation in part. Accordingly, the Court dismissed without
prejudice all of Plaintiff’s claims except his inadequate medical care claim against Defendant
Hanson, in her individual capacity.
“Any motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no more than 10 days after the
entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Eighth Circuit has explained that Rule 59(e)
“was adopted to clarify a district court’s power to correct its own mistakes in the time period
immediately following entry of judgment.” Innovative Home Health Care v. P.T.-O. T. Assoc. of
the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Norman v. Ark. Dep’t of Educ., 79
F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 1996)).

Motions under Rule 59(e) serve the limited function of

correcting “‘manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Id.
(quoting Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988)). “Such motions
cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which
could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.” Id. “District courts enjoy broad
discretion in ruling on such motions.” Capital Indemnity Co. v. Russellville Steel Co., Inc., 367
F.3d 831, 834 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing Concordia College Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 999 F.2d
326, 330 (8th Cir. 1993)).

1

Plaintiff’s objections stated only that he had filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint.

2

Specifically, the Court found that the remaining proposed amendments to Plaintiff’s complaint did not state viable
section 1983 claims of inadequate medical care against the other Defendants, and thus those certain proposed
amendments were denied as futile because they did not cure the original complaint’s deficiencies as identified by the
Report and Recommendation.

2

In this case, Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s dismissal of his claims against all
Defendants other than Defendant Hanson in her individual capacity. Plaintiff moves under Rule
59(e) for the Court to amend its judgment and allow him to file additional amendments to his
complaint in an attempt to assert valid claims of inadequate medical care against the nowdismissed Defendants. 3 The Court has reviewed the pleadings and finds no manifest errors of
law or fact which would justify granting a Rule 59(e) motion in this instance. Thus, there is no
reason for vacating the judgment in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend
the Judgment Under Rule 59(e) (ECF No. 17) should be and hereby is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 29th day of June, 2017.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

3

The Court notes that Rule 59(e) is not a valid avenue in which to move to amend a pleading. See Innovative Home
Health Care, 141 F.3d at 1286 (stating that Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting “manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence”).

3