Freeman v. Commonwealth of Kentucky et al

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 4/10/18; denying 35 Motion to Reopen Case: Plaintiff's motions for leave to amend the complaint (DNs 37 & 39 ) are DENIED. cc: Plaintiff(pro se) (DJT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
KIMBERLY FREEMAN

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17CV-422-JHM

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered December 5, 2017, the Court dismissed the
instant action on initial review of the complaint and its multiple amendments pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e) (DNs 30 & 31). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a pro se motion to reinstate case, to
repeal, and to state a claim (DN 35). Because Plaintiff filed her motion within 28 days of the
Court’s dismissal Order, the Court construes the motion as a motion to alter or amend judgment
pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend if there is: (1) a clear error of
law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to
prevent manifest injustice. GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir.
1999) (citations omitted). Rule 59(e) motions “are not at the disposal of an unsuccessful party to
‘rehash’ the same arguments and facts previously presented.” Rouse v. Nielsen, 851 F. Supp.
717, 734 (D.S.C. 1994) (quoting Keyes v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280
(E.D. Pa. 1991)).
Upon consideration, the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion to be without merit.
Consequently, IT IS ORDERED that the Rule 59(e) motion (DN 35) is DENIED.

Plaintiff also filed two amended complaints (DNs 37 & 39). The Court construes those
filings as motions for leave to amend the complaint. “Amendments after judgment should only
be allowed if the standards under Rule 59(e) or 60(b) are met.” Russell v. GTE Gov’t Sys. Corp.,
141 F. App’x 429, 436 (6th Cir. 2005). Here, the Court has denied Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion,
and Plaintiff has not moved for relief under Rule 60(b).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend the
complaint (DNs 37 & 39) are DENIED.
Date:

April 10, 2018

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4414.005

2