Manton et al v. Strain et al

Filing 62

ORDER AND REASONS denying 55 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 3/18/13. (jjs, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHERRIE BURAS MANTON and
INDEPENDENT FIREARM OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 11-785

RODNEY “JACK” STRAIN, JR., ET AL.

SECTION: R

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend
judgment.1 On December 27, 2012, the Court issued a judgment,
dismissing plaintiffs' claims.2 Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e), a motion to alter or amend a judgment may be
filed within 28 days after the entry of judgment. A district
court has considerable discretion whether to grant a motion to
alter or amend judgment. See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co.,
6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). Motions to alter or amend a
judgment must clearly establish a manifest error of law or fact
or present newly discovered evidence.

Simon v. United States,

891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990). Further, “[r]econsideration
of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that
should be used sparingly.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d
473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).

1

R. Doc. 55.

2

R. Doc. 50.

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend
judgment and finds that it does not demonstrate a manifest error
of law or fact or present newly discovered evidence. The Court
held that Sherrie Manton could have brought her causes of action
in her earlier suit and dismissed the claims under the doctrine
of res judicata.3 That her current counsel did not file the
original complaint does not excuse Manton from failing to bring
claims that "could have been raised in that action.” Oreck
Direct, LLC v. Dyson, Inc., 560 F.3d 398, 401 (5th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)).
Further, plaintiffs contend that the Court erred in finding
that no issues of material fact existed as to whether defendants
lawfully confiscated a shotgun from the Mantons' home. Defendants
submitted an affidavit from Mr. Manton's probation officer in
which she stated that the terms of his probation did not allow
him to have a firearm in the home.4 Although plaintiffs contend
in their briefs that Mr. Manton's probation did not bar him from
possessing a shotgun, plaintiffs have submitted no evidence in
support of their assertion. Therefore, the Court did not err in
holding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that genuine issues
of material fact existed as to Mr. Manton's probation terms and
the legality of defendants' seizure of the shotgun. Finally,

3

R. Doc. 49.

4

R. Doc. 41-7.
2

plaintiffs have not pointed to any newly discovered evidence that
would merit an amendment or alteration of the Court's judgment.
Plaintiffs' assertion regarding new evidence in the case leading
to Mr. Manton's arrest is far too vague to demonstrate that newly
discovered evidence exists that has any bearing on the Court's
order dismissing plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend judgment.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of March, 2013.
__

_________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3