Armstead v. New Orleans City et al

Filing 29

ORDER AND REASONS denying 16 Motion for Reconsideration; All other Motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo on May 12, 2017. (ecm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MILTON ARMSTEAD

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 16-13629

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS AND
STATE OF LOUISIANA

SECTION: “H”(2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 16),
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
Request Reconstruction of Record (Doc. 23).

Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration is DENIED, and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
All other Motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

1

BACKGROUND
On August 5, 2016, Plaintiff Milton Armstead filed this pro se civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 claiming lifelong systematic
discrimination at the hands of the Defendants, the City of New Orleans and
the State of Louisiana, culminateing in his wrongful arrest, prosecution, and
conviction. Plaintiff sought declaratory relief and damages.
Plaintiff claimed his Constitutional rights were violated when police
entered and searched his home, seizing certain incriminating items that led to
his arrest and conviction. He argued that his conviction was part of a larger
scheme to incarcerate African-Americans to generate certain revenue and
benefits for various political figures, and he concludes that such a system is
tantamount to modern day slavery.
Defendants State of Louisiana and City of New Orleans filed Motions to
Dismiss the claims against them. This Court held that the State of Louisiana
was entitled to sovereign immunity and the claims against it were dismissed
with prejudice; that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims arising out of his 1975 arrest,
conviction, and incarceration were prescribed and therefore dismissed with
prejudice; and that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim for municipal liability,
conspiracy under § 1985, or otherwise. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend
his Complaint in the event that he could remedy the deficiencies identified
with respect to the latter claims. Despite requesting additional time within
which to amend, Plaintiff failed to amend his Complaint. Instead, Plaintiff
filed the instant filing, which this Court has construed as a Motion for
Reconsideration. Defendants, however, apparently interpreted Plaintiff’s filing
2

as an amended complaint and moved to dismiss such. Plaintiff has also filed a
motion entitled, “Motion for Leave to Again Request Reconstruction of Record.”
LEGAL STANDARD
Courts in this District generally analyze motions to reconsider
interlocutory orders under Rule 59(e). 1 A Rule 59(e) motion “[i]s not the proper
vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have
been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.” 2 Instead, Rule 59(e)
serves the narrow purpose of correcting “‘manifest error[s] of law or fact or . . .
presenting newly discovered evidence.’“ 3 “‘Manifest error’ is one that ‘is plain
and indisputable, and that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling
law.’” 4 In the Fifth Circuit, altering, amending, or reconsidering a judgment
under Rule 59(e) “[i]s an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” 5
While district courts have “considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant
or deny a motion to alter a judgment,” denial is favored. 6

See Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 09–4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at
*4 n.54 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2010) (collecting cases); Gulf Fleet, 282 F.R.D. at 152 n.40 (same).
2 Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Simon v.
United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)).
3 Advocare Int’l, LP v. Horizon Labs., Inc., 524 F.3d 679, 691 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863 (5th Cir. 2003)).
4 Guy v. Crown Equip. Corp., 394 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Venegas–
Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 195 (1st Cir. 2004)).
5 Templet, 367 F.3d at 479 (citations omitted).
6 Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 921 (5th Cir. 1995).
3
1

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration identifies neither a manifest error
of law nor newly discovered evidence. Plaintiff’s filing merely reasserts and
expounds upon the claims made in his Complaint. All of the arguments made
therein could have been offered in his opposition to Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss.

Even so, none of the arguments cause this Court to change its

position and none remedy the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s claims identified by this
Court’s prior order.
denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is

Because Plaintiff failed to amend his Complaint within the time

provided by this Court, his claims are dismissed with prejudice. 7 All

other

pending motions are therefore mooted.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is
DENIED, and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All other Motions
are DENIED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 12th day of May, 2017.

____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendants interpreted Plaintiff’s filing as an amended complaint and moved to
dismiss such. Even if this Court had construed the filing as an amended complaint, the filing
failed to remedy any of the deficiencies identified by this Court in its dismissal and therefore
Plaintiff’s claims would still have been dismissed with prejudice.
4
7