Cook v. Shreveport et al

Filing 84

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 82 MOTION for Reconsideration re 76 Memorandum Ruling Granting City Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Stuart Cook. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 08/31/2011. (crt,McDonnell, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
STUART COOK

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-0809

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

CITY OF SHREVEPORT, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration1 (Record Document 82) filed by
Plaintiff Stuart Cook (“Cook”). Cook moves the Court to reconsider its ruling granting the
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Paul Robinson, Francis
Mogavero, Pat Hensley, and the City of Shreveport. More specifically, Cook contends
“there are clearly disputed factual issues” and summary judgment was improper.
The undersigned has reviewed Cook’s motion and also revisited the original briefing
associated with the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

The majority of Cook’s

arguments in the Motion for Reconsideration, namely those relating to exigent
circumstances and qualified immunity, were raised in his opposition brief (Record
Document 58) and were considered by the Court in its ruling on the Motion for Partial

1

Rule 54(b) is the proper procedural vehicle to request that a district court reconsider
an interlocutory order. See Brown v. Wichita County, Tex., No. 05-108, 2011 WL 1562567,
*2 (N.D.Tex. April 26, 2011). While the exact standard for deciding a Rule 54(b) motion to
reconsider is unclear, “whether to grant such a motion rests within the discretion of the
court.” Id. Moreover, “the district court’s discretion in this respect is broad.” Id.
A Rule 54(b) motion to reconsider “requires the court to determine whether
reconsideration is necessary under the relevant circumstances.” Id. While the legal
standard for evaluating a motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b) appears to be less
exacting than that imposed by Rules 59 and 60, “considerations similar to those under
Rules 59 and 60 inform the Court’s analysis.” Id. Such considerations include whether the
movant is attempting to rehash its previously made arguments or is attempting to raise an
argument for the first time without justification. See Valles v. Frazier, No. 08-501, 2009 WL
4639679, *2 (W.D.Tex. Nov. 30, 2009).

Summary Judgment.
The Court does note that Cook has now submitted an affidavit dated August 24,
2011. The Court will not consider such affidavit, as Cook has presented no reason
justifying why the affidavit was not submitted as part of his opposition to the Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment. See Martin v. Lennox Intern. Inc., No. 08-10822, 2009 WL
2134908, *3 (5th Cir. July 16, 2009) (“[T]he summary judgment procedure would become
uncontrolled if a court could not enforce some limits on the timely submission of appropriate
evidence.”). Additionally, Cook’s argument alleging that two of the officers failed to comply
with the Shreveport Police Training Manual is also improper evidence because Cook is
attempting to raise this argument for the first time without justification. See Valles v.
Frazier, No. 08-501, 2009 WL 4639679, *2 (W.D.Tex. Nov. 30, 2009); see also Record
Document 82-4 at 3.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (Record Document 82) filed
by Plaintiff Stuart Cook is DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 31st day of August, 2011.

Page 2 of 2