Williamwest v. Barack Obama, et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 17 Motion for clarification. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 6/30/15. (jjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DODIYI J. WILLIAMWEST

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 14-2330

BARACK OBAMA, ET AL.

SECTION: R(5)
ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is plaintiff Dodiyi Williamwest’s motion for
reconsideration1 and motion for clarification2 of this Court’s Order
adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations and
judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.3
A district court has considerable discretion to grant or to
deny a motion for reconsideration.
Banning

Co.,

6

F.3d

350,

355

See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v.

(5th

Cir.

1993).

A

court’s

reconsideration of an earlier order is an extraordinary remedy,
which should be granted sparingly.

See Fields v. Pool Offshore,

Inc., No. Civ. A. 97-3170, 1998 WL 43217, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 3,
1988), aff’d, 182 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 1999); Bardwell v. George G.
Sharp, Inc., Nos. Civ. A. 93-3590, 93-3591, 1995 WL 517120, at *1
(E.D. La. Aug. 30, 1995).

The Court must “strike the proper

balance” between the need for finality and “the need to render just
decisions on the basis of all the facts.”

Banning, 6 F.3d at 355.

To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, a party must “clearly

1

R. Doc. 16.

2

R. Doc. 17.

3

R. Docs. 14 & 15.

establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present
newly discovered evidence.”

Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763

(5th Cir. 2005) (quoting Pioneer Natural Res. USA, Inc. v. Paper,
Allied Indus., Chem. & Energy Workers Int’l Union Local 4-487, 328
F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir. 2003)).
The Court finds that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
has not established either a manifest error of law or fact or
presented newly discovered evidence in support of reconsidering
this Court’s prior Order and Judgment.
for

reconsideration

consists

of

Indeed, plaintiff’s motion

the

same

arguments

previously before the Magistrate Judge and this Court.

raised

Similarly,

plaintiff’s motion for clarification points to nothing in the
Court’s previous order requiring further explanation. Accordingly,
plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration and clarification are
DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of June, 2015.

_____________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2