Scott v. Turner

Filing 30

RULING AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Objections 28 29 are OVERRULED. The Court's previous Ruling and Order stands. (Doc. no. 27). Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 9/29/2021. (EDC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BEN HENRY SCOTT CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
KEITH TURNER, ET AL. NO. 18-00626-BAJ-EWD

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiffs Objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28) and the Court's Ruling and Order adopting
same (Doc. 29). The Court will construe Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. 28; Doc. 29)
collectively as a Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e).

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed suit against several Defendants, including
Defendant Keith Turner. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed
in forma panperis. (Doc. 6; Doc. 9). Thereafter, the Court withheld ordering issuance

of service of process to conduct the screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and
1915A. (Doc. 12).
On October 21, 2019, as a result of the screening process, the Magistrate Judge

issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of some of Plaintiffs
claims. (Doc. 11). Relevant to the instant Motion, the Magistrate Judge recommended

that the Court refer the matter to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings

1

regarding Plaintiffs claims for monetary damages against Turner in his individual
capacity for retaliation. (Id. at p. 13). The Court adopted the Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 16).
Shortly thereafter, the Magistrate Judge ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve
Turner. (Doc. 17). Once served, Turner filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State

a Claim Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 19; Doc. 22). On
February 22, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a second Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Turner s Motion and dismiss

the entire matter with prejudice. (Doc. 26). Plaintiff did not file a timely Objection to
the Report and Recommendation. Thus, the Court adopted the Report and
Recommendation, granted Turners Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed the matter

with prejudice. (Doc. 27).
Shortly after the Court issued its Ruling and Order, Plaintiff filed an Objection
to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28) and an Objection to the Court s Ruling
and Order. (Doc. 29). As noted, the Court shall liberally construe Plaintiffs Objections
as a Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Nonetheless, for the reasons stated herein,
Plaintiffs Objections are overruled and the Courts Ruling and Order stands. (Doc.
27).

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides that a party may file [a] motion
to alter or amend a judgment [within] 28 days after the entry of the judgment. Combs
v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. CV 18-00459-BAJ-RLB, 2020 WL 6153685, at *1
(M.D. La. Oct. 20, 2020). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has
explained the purpose and proper application of Rule 59(e) as follows:
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). This Court
has held that such a motion is not the proper vehicle for rehashing
evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or
raised before the entry of judgment. Simon v. United States,

891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir.1990). Rather, 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 fl Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Gir.1989) (internal quotations
omitted). Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an
extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. Clancy v.

Employers Health Ins. Co., 101 F.Supp.2d 463, 465 (E.D.La.2000) (citing
11 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane,
Federal Practice & Procedure § 2810.1, at 124 (2d ed.1995)).
Templet v. HydroChem Inc,, 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th Civ. 2004).

HI. DISCUSSION
In his Objection to the Court s Ruling and Order (Doc. 29), Plaintiff contends
that the Court should consider his Objection to the underlying Report and
Recommendation because it was timely filed. (Doc. 28). A review of the record,

however, shows that Plaintiffs Objection was not timely filed.
The Report and Recommendation, issued on February 22, 2021, emphasizes

the following:

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), you have 14 days after being
served with the attached report to file written objections to the proposed
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set forth

therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings,
conclusions and recommendations within 14 days after being served will
bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal

the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the District Court.

ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO
FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT.
(Doc. 26, p. 1). Here, March 8, 2021, marked the fourteenth day after the issuance of
the Report and Recommendation, the deadline to file an objection. {See Doc. 26, see

also docket text accompanying Doc. 26, which provides Objections to R&R due by
3/8/2021.").
Plaintiff argues that he mailed his Objection on March 11, 2021, and using the
"mailbox rule, his objection is therefore timely. (Doc. 29, p. 3). The Fifth Circuit has
explained:
Under the prison mailbox rule, a prisoner's pleading is deemed to have

been filed on the date that the pro se prisoner submits the pleading to
prison authorities for mailing. Causey v. Cain, 450 F.3d 601, 604
(5th Cir. 2006) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-71,
108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988)). For example, if a pro se
prisoner mails his pleading three days prior to a procedural deadline yet
it does not reach the clerk of the court until three days after the deadline,
under the prison mailbox rule, the pleading is considered timely.
Stoot v. Cain, 570 F.3d 669, 671 (5th Cir. 2009). Here, however. Plaintiff mailed his
Objection on March 11, 2021, three days after the filing deadline. (Doc. 29, p. 3
(Plaintiff argued that "the mailing date of [P]laintiffs motion dated,

March llth, 2021, makes that motion filed timely. )). Because his Objection v^as not
submitted] Q to prison authorities for mailing by March 8, 2021, Plaintiffs
Objection was untimely. See Stoot, 570 F.3d at 671.

Assuming arguendo that the Court should consider Plaintiffs untimely
Objection, the outcome of this matter remains the same. In his Objection, Plaintiff
argues that the Courts Ruling was incorrect because the Magistrate Judge s
February 22, 2021 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26) contradicted the
October 21, 2019 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11). (Doc. 28, p. 9). Plaintiff
challenges the fact that the Court initially found his retaliation claim sufficient to
survive the screening process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, but
ultimately found his retaliation claim insufficient to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
The Courts Rulings, however, are not contradictory. Rather, different

standards apply at different stages of litigation.1 The Fifth Circuit has distinguished
the differing standards between dismissal of a frivolous claim under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismissal for failure to state a claim under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6):
Although both Rule 12(b)(6) and § 1915(e)(2)(B) counsel the
district court to decide whether dismissal is warranted based only on the
complaint, each requires the district court to employ a different
standard when determining whether a legal issue is frivolous. When a

complaint raises an arguable question of law which the district court
ultimately finds is correctly resolved against the plaintiff, dismissal on

1 Notably, the Magistrate Judge s October Report and Recommendation merely opined that
Plaintiffs claims were "sufficient to state retaliatory motive and intent at this stage of the
proceedings. (Doc. 11, p. 7 (emphasis added)).

5

Rule 12(b)(6) grounds is appropriate, but dismissal on the basis of
frivolousness is not. Indeed, a failure to state a claim does not

invariably mean that the claim is without arguable merit. The
Supreme Court has emphasized that the standard for dismissal is

higher under § 1915(e)(2)(B) because the plaintiff may not have the
opportunity to respond meaningfully by opposing a motion to dismiss.
With this is mind, we have said that a claim lacks an arguable basis in
law if it is grounded on an indisputably meritless theory or alleges a
violation of a legal interest that clearly does not exist.
Alfred v. Corr. Corp. of Am,, 437 F. App'x 281, 284 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-30 (1989) ("That frivolousness in the § 1915(d) context
refers to a more limited set of claims than does Rule 12(b)(6) accords, moreover, with
the understanding articulated in other areas of law that not all unsuccessful claims
are frivolous."); Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999)).
Accordingly, a certain claim may not be frivolous to warrant dismissal at the

outset of a case but may still fail to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Indeed, the
Magistrate Judge emphasized in the October Report that [t]his Report and
Recommendation does not speak to the ultimate viability of the remaining claim; the
only conclusion of this Report is that the remaining claim is not so factually or legally
frivolous as to warrant dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) or 1915A/'
(Doc. 11, p. 13). Plaintiffs Objections are overruled.

IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. 28; Doc. 29) are
OVERRULED. The Court's previous Ruling and Order stands. (Doc. 27).

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this ^ l day of September, 2021

JUDGE BRIA^LA^ACKSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA