Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Feldman

Filing 12

ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/24/2014. (cms)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF
MEDICAL EXAMINERS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-2744

ARNOLD E. FELDMAN

SECTION I
ORDER

On December 22, 2014, the Court issued an order and reasons1 granting the motion2 to
remand filed by the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners (“the Board”) on the basis of lack
of subject matter jurisdiction over the administrative disciplinary proceeding removed to this Court
by Dr. Arnold E. Feldman (“Dr. Feldman”). Dr. Feldman has now filed a motion3 for reconsideration
of the remand order.4
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly recognize motions for reconsideration.
Bass v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 211 F.3d 959, 962 (5th Cir. 2000). Because this motion was filed one
day after the Court issued the remand order, it will be characterized as a motion to alter or amend
the judgment and will be construed pursuant to Rule 59(e). See Humphries v. Onebeacon Am. Ins.
Co., No. 13-5426, 2014 WL 722262, at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 24, 2014) (Africk, J.) (applying Rule 59(e)
to motion for reconsideration of order remanding to state court). A motion to alter or amend the

1

R. Doc. No. 10.
R. Doc. No. 5.
3
R. Doc. No. 11.
4
The Court will assume for the purposes of this motion that it has jurisdiction to review the remand
order based on Dr. Feldman’s invocation of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 and 1443. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)
(“An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on
appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was
removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.”).
2

1

judgment filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) “serve[s] the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co.,
875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989). Rule 59 does not provide litigants with a second chance to raise
issues that previously could have been addressed. See Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473,
478-79 (5th Cir. 2004).
The Court has reviewed Dr. Feldman’s motion and finds no basis to exercise jurisdiction or
to reconsider the order remanding to the Board. Withrow v. Larkin is inapposite because it arose
from a § 1983 action filed in federal court and not an administrative matter removed to federal court.
See 421 U.S. 35, 39 (1975). The passing reference to 42 U.S.C. § 111126 and the wild speculation
that “Mouton must have some special arrangement with the government and the United States
Attorney’s office which allows her to conduct prosecutions on their behalf”7 fall woefully short of
establishing jurisdiction, for the same reasons stated in the Court’s order remanding to the Board.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, December 24, 2014.
________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

R. Doc. No. 11-1, at 14.
R. Doc. No. 11-1, at 9.

7

2