COY v. LOWE et al
ORDER - Because Mr. Coy has not shown newly discovered evidence or that the Court committed a manifest error of law or fact, his motion for reconsideration, construed as a Rule 59(e) motion, is DENIED. Dkt. 12 . All other pending motions are DENIED as moot. See Order. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 4/28/2021. (KAA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
BRAIDAN C. COY,
RAYMOND T. LOWE,
STATE OF INDIANA,
On January 11, 2021, Mr. Coy brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
against his defense attorney and the State of Indiana. Dkt. 1. On January 28,
2021, the Court granted Mr. Coy's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Dkt. 6. In its screening
order, the Court dismissed Mr. Coy's claims for failure to state a claim and
gave Mr. Coy until March 1, 2021, to show cause why Judgement consistent
with that order should not issue. Id.
Mr. Coy responded by this deadline but did not address the deficiencies
explained in the screening order. Dkt. 8. Specifically, Mr. Coy did not
adequately allege that his defense attorney, Raymond Lowe, was acting under
the color of state law. Therefore, on March 17, 2021, the Court dismissed Mr.
Coy's case with prejudice. Dkt. 10. On April 5, 2021, Mr. Coy filed a motion
for reconsideration. Dkt. .
The Court construes Mr. Coy's motion as a motion to alter or amend a
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). This rule allows "[a]
motion to alter or amend a judgment [to be] filed no later than 28 days after the
entry of judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). To prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion, a
party must "'clearly establish' (1) that the court committed a manifest error of
law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment."
Blue v. Hartford Life & Acc. Inc. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting
Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006)).
Mr. Coy filed his motion for reconsideration within the 28 days required
by Rule 59(e). See dkt. 10; dkt. 12. In that motion, Mr. Coy alleges that Mr.
Lowe acted under the color of state law because "'when the state appointed Mr.
Lowe to [his] case, he was ultimately granted full or some authority and the
power to run [his] case as he liked.'" Dkt. 12. In support, Mr. Coy cites United
States v. Picklo and Smith v. Bacon; cases from other circuits which are
factually different from this case. See dkt. 12 at 1–2.
Indeed, the defendant in United States v. Picklo was a former investigator
with the state Department of Insurance, not, as here, a defense attorney. 190
Fed. App'x 887, 888 (11th Cir. 2006). And the plaintiffs in Smith v. Bacon
alleged that multiple state officials, including public defenders and state court
judges, conspired together. 699 F.2d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 1983). Unlike the
defendants in Bacon, Mr. Lowe was not acting under the color of state law
while representing Mr. Coy. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981).
Because Mr. Coy has not shown newly discovered evidence or that the
Court committed a manifest error of law or fact, his motion for reconsideration,
construed as a Rule 59(e) motion, is DENIED. Dkt. . All other pending
motions are DENIED as moot.
BRAIDAN C. COY
WABASH VALLEY - CF
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
CARLISLE, IN 47838
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?