Nasim v. Goodly et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 29 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/2/15. (jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GHULAM NASIM

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 14-2647

COMMANDER GOODLY, ET AL.

SECTION: “A” (1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Vacate Orders (Rec. Doc. 29) filed by Plaintiff Ghulam
Nasim, who appears pro se. Plaintiff moves the Court to vacate an order from this Court granting
a motion to dismiss and denying a motion to stay, and he moves the Court to vacate an order
denying a motion to vacate judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
As summarized in the Court’s previous order (Rec. Doc. 28), Plaintiff Ghulam Nasim
claimed that on November 22, 2013, four unknown men assaulted him as he was waiting for a
taxi cab at the 1400 block of North Broad Avenue. Plaintiff alleged that the four men struck him
repeatedly and demanded money. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants had not contacted him
regarding the incident that occurred, despite a request filed with Commander Goodly’s office as
to the status of capturing the assailants. (Rec. Doc. 1, Compl. at 3). Plaintiff broadly alleged that
Defendants conspired to cover-up and derail Plaintiff’s case, which violated “fundamental rules
of justice.” (Rec. Doc. 1, Compl. at 4).
On June 10, 2015, Defendants sent Plaintiff a letter with the requested update. (Rec. Doc.
24). Subsequently, on June 12, 2015, this Court granted judgment in favor of Defendants,
dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim.
In Plaintiff’s first motion to vacate, Plaintiff pointed to no newly discovered evidence or
change in the controlling law. Nor did Plaintiff identify a manifest legal or factual error upon
which the judgment was based, or otherwise explain why the motion “is necessary in order to

prevent manifest injustice.” FRCP 59(e). In the instant motion, Plaintiff has submitted the same
evidence and asserted that the Court did not read it. The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s
evidence again, and it has carefully reviewed its previous judgments. The Court finds that
Plaintiff’s evidence does not give the Court proper grounds on which to vacate the judgments.
As the Court has stated previously, the Court sympathizes with Plaintiff’s suffering, and
the Court understands that Plaintiff disagrees with this Court’s rulings. Nonetheless, there was
not enough evidence here to support a claim by Plaintiff against Defendants, and there is still not
enough evidence.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Vacate Judgment (Rec. Doc. 29) filed by Plaintiff
Ghulam Nasim is DENIED.

October 2, 2015
____________________________________________
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE