Boyle et al v. Kliebert et al
Filing
35
ORDER AND REASONS denying 33 Motion to Vacate, Alter Or Amend Judgment. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (ijg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JAMES EDWARD BOYLE, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 13-5717
KATHY KLIEBERT, ET AL.
SECTION "B"(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Considering Plaintiffs’ foregoing “Motion to Vacate, Alter,
or Amend Judgment” (Rec. Doc. 33) and Defendant’s Opposition
thereto (Rec. Doc. 34),
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
This case has been before the Court in one procedural form
or another on multiple occasions and the facts will not be set
forth
here
with
any
particularity.
(See
Rec.
Doc.
31).
On
September 10, 2014, this Court issued and Order and Reasons
(Rec. Doc. 31) dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Id. On the same
date,
the
Court
entered
judgment
in
favor
of
Defendant
and
against Plaintiffs. (Rec. Doc. 32).
The grounds for the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims
in the Order of September 10, 2014, were as follows:
(1)
Suits
for
monetary
relief
against
Defendant
Kathy
Kliebert, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health
and Hospitals, in her official capacity, are prohibited
under the Eleventh Amendment and are not authorized under
28 U.S.C. § 1983;
(2)
Plaintiffs lack standing to bring suit for injunctive
relief against Defendant because the record reflects they
are no longer domiciled in Louisiana; and,
(3)
Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims are prescribed, because they
were put on notice of their injury when Medicaid failed
to respond to their claims within the one-year period
prescribed by statute (which amounted to a denial)1 and
failed to file suit within one year of the lapse of that
deadline,
as
required
by
the
Louisiana
prescriptive
period for personal injuries, made applicable under §
1983 precedent.
In
little
their
but
new
motion
re-assert
to
reopen
their
the
prior
case,
Plaintiffs
arguments.
This
do
is
inappropriate in the context of a motion brought pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P 59(e). See First Guaranty Bank v. Bancinsure,
Inc., 22007 WL 1558652 (E.D. La. May 30, 2007). The remedy
afforded under Rule 59 is extraordinary and should only be
used
sparingly.
Southern
Constructors
Group,
Inc.
v.
Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993).
1
Without re-hashing the Court’s prior analysis, it is noted that Plaintiffs
effectively concede this point in their Complaint. See (Rec. Doc. 1 at 5)
(“Medicaid’s failure to process D.B.’s claims is effectively a denial of
services, and also a denial of D.B.’s due process rights to a fair hearing to
challenge the denial.”).
The sole ostensibly novel argument raised in Plaintiffs’
motion is that the Court misconstrued the various claims they
filed with Medicaid by treating them as requests to reconsider
prior
denials,
rather
than
treating
them
each
as
separate
claims from which individual prescriptive periods would run.
This
is
contrary
to
failure
to
Medicaid’s
period
amounted
Plaintiffs’
process
to
denial
admission,
claims
of
within
supra,
that
statutory
claims.
those
the
Further,
Plaintiffs’ allegations of a continuing violation are contrary
to applicable case law. See Berry v. Allstate Ins. Co., 84 F.
App’x 442, 444-45 (5th Cir. 2004); Russell v. Bd. of Trs. Of
Firemen,
968
F.2d
489,
493-94
(5th
Cir.
1992)(denial
of
benefits is a one-time event and does not give rise to the
continuing violation doctrine). Finally, and most importantly,
even
if
the
Court
were
to
entertain
Plaintiffs’
theory
relating to separately-running prescriptive periods from the
date of each request to Medicaid, this would have no impact on
Plaintiffs’
preclusion
from
monetary
damages
under
the
Eleventh Amendment, nor would it change the fact that they
have no standing to seek injunctive relief.
The
Court
is
not
blind
to
the
apparently
harsh
result
called for under applicable law, nor is the Court unable to
sympathize
with
Plaintiffs
herein.
Nevertheless,
shown no entitlement to the relief requested.
they
have
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of January, 2015.
____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?