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