Knightshed v. State of Louisiana et al

Filing 31

RULING denying 26 Motion for Reconsideration of 25 Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 4/12/2013. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RONALD KNIGHTSHED #424685
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-610-JJB
STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.
RULING ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 26) by the
Plaintiff, Ronald Knightshed.

The Motion is opposed (Doc. 30).

The Court has

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Oral argument is not necessary.
Knightshed asks the Court to reconsider its November 8, 2012 summary
judgment ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants due to
Knightshed’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a). Knightshed argues genuine issues of material fact exist based on newly
found evidence—a newspaper article stating that the American Civil Liberties Union is
investigating the potential of system-wide misuse and abuse of pepper spray on
inmates at Angola—and the fact that discovery had not been completed in this case.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that courts may reconsider
interlocutory orders or decisions. A Court retains jurisdiction over all the claims in a suit
and may alter its earlier decisions until final judgment has been issued.

Livingston

Downs Racing Ass’n v. Jefferson Downs Corp., 259 F. Supp. 2d 471, 475 (M.D. La.
2002).

Final judgment has not been issued in this case, so the instant motion is

properly considered under Rule 54(b).

1

District courts have considerable discretion in deciding whether to reconsider an
interlocutory order.

Kemp v. CTL Distribution, Inc., No. 09-1109, 2012 U.S. Dist.

860404, at *3 (M.D. La. March 13, 2012). Although courts are concerned with principles
of finality and judicial economy, “the ultimate responsibility of the federal courts, at all
levels, is to reach the correct judgment under law.” Georgia Pacific, LLC v. Heavy
Machines, Inc., No. 07-944, 2010 U.S. Dist. WL 2026670, at *2 (M.D. La. May 20,
2010). “[R]ulings should only be reconsidered where the moving party has presented
substantial reasons for reconsideration.” State of La. v. Sprint Communications Co.,
899 F. Supp. 282, 284 (M.D. La. Sept. 8, 1995).
The newspaper article and the argument that discovery was not complete are not
substantial reasons for reconsideration.

Knightshed does not argue, much less

convince the Court, that the evidence and alleged discovery issue could affect the
decision that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Accordingly, Ronald Knightshed’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 26) is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on April 12, 2013.





JAMES J. BRADY, DISTRICT JUDGE

2