Gates v. Strain et al

Filing 270

ORDERED that Plaintiff's 258 Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's 269 Motion for Leave to File Reply is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier. (Reference: 07-6983, 13-6425)(gec)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHANE M. GATES

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 07-6983
c/w 13-6425

SHERIFF RODNEY JACK STRAIN,
ET AL.

SECTION: “J”(2)

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (R. Doc. 258) filed by
Plaintiff Shane Gates. Mr. Gates urges the Court to reconsider its
Order and Reasons (R. Doc. 255) denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Injunction and to Lift Stay (R. Doc. 240) and granting Defendants’
Motion to Lift Stay and Dismiss (R. Doc. 243). Defendants oppose
Plaintiff’s motion. (R. Doc. 267).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly allow
motions for reconsideration of an order. Bass v. U.S. Dep’t of
Agric., 211 F.3d 959, 962 (5th Cir. 2000). However, the Fifth
Circuit has consistently recognized that parties may challenge a
judgment or order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or
60(b). See Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 483 (5th Cir.
2004). The difference between a Rule 60(b) and 59(e) motion is
based on timing. If the motion is filed within twenty-eight days
of the final judgment, then it falls under Rule 59(e). In re FEMA

Formaldehyde Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 07-1873, 2012 WL 458821, at
*2 (E.D. La. Feb. 13, 2012). However, if the motion is filed more
than twenty-eight days after the final judgment it is governed by
Rule 60(b). See id.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was filed on April 24,
2017. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s March 24,
2017 Order and Reasons. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion was filed
more than twenty-eight days from the Court’s Order and Reasons and
will be analyzed pursuant to Rule 60(b).
To prevail on a motion under Rule 60(b), the movant must
clearly establish one of six factors: (1) mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence
that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in
time

to

move

for

a

new

trial

under

Rule

59(b);

(3)

fraud,

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or
discharge; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been
reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer
equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b). However, motions to reconsider or amend a final
judgment are “extraordinary remedies” and are “not the proper
vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that
could have been offered or raised before entry of judgment.”
Templet, 367 F.3d at 478-79. Also, such motions should not be used
2

to “re-litigate prior matters that . . . simply have been resolved
to the movant’s dissatisfaction.” See Voisin v. Tetra Techs., Inc.,
No. 08-1302, 2010 WL 3943522, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 6, 2010).
Plaintiff asserts his motion under Rule 60(b)(1), (3), and
(6). Nevertheless, the motion merely rehashes arguments previously
raised

ad

nauseam.

After

reviewing

the

record,

the

parties’

memoranda, and the applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiff
has not demonstrated that the Court made a material mistake of
fact or law, that judgment was unfairly obtained by Defendants’
fraudulent acts, or that extraordinary circumstances are present
that would warrant relief. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s lawsuit
was a direct result of him purposefully evading the state court
system for years. This Court has permitted Plaintiff to fully and
fairly

present

his

arguments

over

the

last

nine

years.

His

dissatisfaction with the result is not grounds for granting the
relief requested.

3

Accordingly,
IT

IS

HEREBY

ORDERED

that

Plaintiff’s

Motion

for

Reconsideration (R. Doc. 255) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
File Reply (R. Doc. 269) is DENIED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 1st day of June, 2017.

CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4