Leleaux v. Harrison et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying 19 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 19 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 06/29/09. (crt,Delgado, S)

RECEIVED USDC, WESTERN DISTRICT OF LA. TONY MOORE, CLERK
________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT 01? LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION

RONALD LELEAUX, JR. VERSUS JOHN R. HARRISON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0509 JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES MEMORANDUM RULII'4G

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Ronald Leleaux, Jr.'s ("Leleaux") "Motion to Amend or Alter the Complaint Pursuant to Rule 15(a) and/or to Alter or Amend the Judgement [sic] under F.R.C.P. 59(e) and/or Reconsider...." [Doe. No, 19]. Leleaux seeks to amend his complaintto assert a claim for monetary damages against Defendant Judge John R. Harrison ("Judge Harrison") in his individual capacity. Leleaux also seeks to alter or amend the Court's June 16,2009 Judgment [Doc. No. 18] adopting the Report and Recommendation ofdie Magistrate Judge and dismissing his claims with prejudice for falling to state a claim. A court should freely give leave to amend a pleading "when justice so requires." FED. R. Civ. P. 1 5(a)(2). However, a court need not grant leave to amend when the proposed pleading would be fi.itile. See FDIC v Conner, 20 F.3d 1376, 1385 (5th Cir. 1994). Leleaux's complaint does not specify whether he seeks damages against Judge Harrison in his individual or official capacity. See [Doc. No. 1, ¶]. Judge Harrison is entitled to absolutej udicial immunity from a claim against him in his individual capacity. See Sz~p.Ct. of Va. v. Consumers Union of the US., Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 734--35 (1980); Boner i& Texas, 341 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cit 2003). Therefore, the Court finds that the proposed amendment is futile, and Leleaux's motion to amend is DENTED.

A motion for reconsideration is made pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure Rule 59(e). See FED. R. Civ. P. 59(e); see also Pa/in v. Allied Signal, Inc., 77 F.3d 782,785 n.l (5th Cir. 1996). "Such motions serve the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Waibnan v. hit `I Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Leleaux reasserts the arguments lie made in his complaint and subsequent pleadings. The Court has considered those arguments again and fmds that Leleaux has failed to raise grounds that would entitle him to relief Leleaux's motion for reconsideration is, therefore, DENIED. MONROE, LOUISIANA, this

¶

day of June, 2009.

ROBERT U. JAMES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7