Jenkins v. Robert M. Murphy et al
Filing
70
ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for New Trial (Rec. Doc. 61 ) is DENIED, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 1/14/2019. (sa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARK ANTHONY JENKINS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 18-3122
ROBERT M. MURPHY, et al.
SECTION: M (1)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a motion for new trial filed by plaintiff Mark Anthony Jenkins
(“Jenkins”),1 to which defendants Robert Murphy (“Murphy”), Barron Burmaster (“Burmaster”)
and Kristyl Treadway (“Treadway”) respond in opposition, 2 and in support of which Jenkins
replies.3 Having considered the parties’ memoranda and the applicable law, the Court issues this
Order & Reasons.
I.
BACKGROUND
This action is a collateral attack on a state court judgment. The pertinent facts and
procedural history of this case were fully recited in this Court’s November 27, 2018 Order &
Reasons granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss,4 and will not be restated herein.
Jenkins argues that this Court should reconsider its November 27, 2018 Order & Reasons
in which it found that Jenkins’ claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and dismissed
his suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.5 Jenkins argues that this Court failed to consider
his contention that the Louisiana court of appeal for the fifth circuit lacked jurisdiction to render
its July 31, 2015 ruling on paternity, thereby making its decision void ab initio and not subject to
1
R. Doc. 61.
R. Docs. 62, 65 & 66.
3
R. Doc. 69.
4
R. Doc. 58.
5
Id. at 13.
2
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.6 The defendants oppose Jenkins’ motion for new trial arguing that
he has not raised any manifest errors of law or fact or presented new evidence that would warrant
granting a new trial.7
II.
LAW & ANALYSIS
A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the correctness of a judgment. In re Transtexas
Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002). “Rule 59(e) is properly invoked to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Id. “A Rule 59(e)
motion should not be used to relitigate prior matters that should have been urged earlier or that
simply have been resolved to the movant’s dissatisfaction.” In re Self, 172 F. Supp. 2d 813, 816
(W.D. La. 2001). The grant of such a motion is an “extraordinary remedy that should be used
sparingly.” Indep. Coca-Cola Employees’ Union of Lake Charles, No. 1060 v. Coca–Cola
Bottling Co. United, Inc., 114 F. App’x 137, 143 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
Jenkins seeks to relitage a matter that was previously urged in his opposition to the
motions to dismiss and that was resolved to his dissatisfaction. In ruling on the motions to
dismiss, this Court considered whether the Louisiana court of appeal’s July 31, 2015 ruling on
paternity was void ab initio, and found that it was not.8 Jenkins’ motion for reconsideration
points to no manifest error of law or fact or newly discovered evidence as would alter this
conclusion.
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Jenkins’ motion for new trial (R. Doc. 61) is
DENIED.
6
R. Doc. 61-2.
R. Docs. 62, 65 & 66.
8
R. Doc. 58 at 12-13.
7
2
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of January 2019.
________________________________
BARRY W. ASHE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?