Hooks v. Lalonde et al
ORDER & REASONS: It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's 35 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier. (gec)
Case 2:22-cv-00453-CJB-KWR Document 39 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
STEPHANIE LALONDE, ET AL.
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration (Rec Doc. 35) filed by
Plaintiff, Arthur Hooks. The motion is opposed (Rec. Doc. 38) by Defendant, Michael
Allen. Having considered the motions and legal memoranda, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs’ motion (Rec. Doc. 35) should be
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s complaint arises from an ongoing criminal case, during which his
attorney sought a competency evaluation. The sole allegation against Michael Allen
is that “Michael Allen District Attorney can clearly see that those charges are bogus
and basis [sic] but continue to sue.” (Rec. Doc. 1, at 5). Plaintiff sought monetary
damages and “to restrain all defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff.” Id. at 6.
Defendant, Michael Allen, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient service of process, and failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. (Rec. Doc. 32-1). Defendant set the motion for
submission on November 2, 2022. Plaintiff, however, failed to file a timely opposition.
Because it further appeared to the Court that the motion has merit, the Court granted
Case 2:22-cv-00453-CJB-KWR Document 39 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 4
the motion to dismiss on October 28, 2022. (Rec. Doc. 34). Plaintiff seeks
reconsideration of the Court’s Order dismissing Mr. Allen.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly allow motions for
reconsideration of an order. Bass v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 211 F.3d 959, 962 (5th Cir.
2000). However, the Fifth Circuit has consistently recognized that parties may
challenge a judgment or order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e). Southern
Snow Manufacturing Co, Inc. v. Snowizard Holdings, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 2d 548, 563–
64 (E.D. La. 2013).
Altering or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary
remedy” used “sparingly” by the courts. Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473,
479 (5th Cir. 2004). A motion to alter or amend calls into question the correctness of
a judgment and is permitted only in narrow situations, “primarily to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Id.; see also Schiller v.
Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003).
Courts have noted that motions to reconsider or amend a final or partial
judgment are “not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or
arguments that could have been offered or raised before entry of judgment.” Templet,
367 F.3d at 478-79; Snowizard, 921 F. Supp. 2d at 565. Also, such motions should not
be used to “re-litigate prior matters that . . . simply have been resolved to the movant’s
dissatisfaction.” See Voisin v. Tetra Techs., Inc., No. 08-1302, 2010 WL 3943522, at
*2 (E.D. La. Oct. 6, 2010). Thus, to prevail on a motion under Rule 59(e), the movant
Case 2:22-cv-00453-CJB-KWR Document 39 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 4
must clearly establish at least one of four factors: (1) the motion is necessary to correct
a manifest error of law, (2) the movant presents newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence, (3) the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest
injustice, or (4) the motion is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.
Snowizard, 921 F. Supp. 2d at 565; Schiller, 342 F.3d at 567; Ross v. Marshall, 426
F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005).
On November 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of
the Court’s Order dismissing Mr. Allen. Plaintiff argues that he should be granted
protection from retaliation because he was a whistleblower, alleging Mr. Allen
conspired with the other defendants in this case to seek a wrongful conviction.
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration based on his impression that this matter was being
reviewed by a higher court, and he was unaware he needed to respond to Mr. Allen’s
However, Plaintiff failed to clearly establish any of the factors necessary for
the Court to reconsider its previous motion. Plaintiff seemingly contends that,
because he appealed to the Fifth Circuit, he had no obligation to submit a response
to the motion to dismiss, due on October 25, 2022. However, the Fifth Circuit
dismissed his appeal on September 21, 2022; (Rec. Doc. 30); over one month before
his opposition was due. Therefore, this argument is unavailing.
The Court also declines to reconsider Plaintiff’s attempt to relitigate matters
that were resolved to his dissatisfaction, specifically his argument that Mr. Allen
Case 2:22-cv-00453-CJB-KWR Document 39 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 4
colluded with the other named defendants to seek a wrongful conviction. Therefore,
the facts in this case do not warrant the extraordinary relief associated with granting
a motion for reconsideration.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Rec.
Doc. 35) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of November, 2022.
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?