Jackson v. Walker et al

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 61 Motion for New Trial; denying 64 Motion to Strike and Alternatively for Extension of Time to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 10/06/2015. (crt,McDonnell, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
BARBARA JACKSON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-2247

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

PITTRE WALKER, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court are two motions filed by pro se plaintiff Barbara Jackson
(“Jackson”). The first is Jackson’s “Rule 59 Motion for New Trial on Recusal of Judge
Samuel Maury Hicks, Magistrate Judge Mark L. Hornsby, Judge Carl Stewart; Vacate
Tainted Orders and Judgments Entered Through Fraud.” Record Document 61. The
second is Jackson’s “Motions to Strike Cook Yancey, et al’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Request for New Trial; and for Ruling on October 6, 2014 Rule 55(b)(2) Motion; and
Alternatively for Extension of Time to File Reply Memorandum.” Record Document 64.
Defendants have opposed both motions. See Record Documents 63 & 67. For the
reasons set forth below, Jackson’s motions are DENIED.
Motion to Strike, for Ruling on October 6, 2014 Rule 55(b)(2) Motion, & for Extension of
Time to File Reply Memorandum
The basis of Jackson’s Motion to Strike is unclear, but it appears she is challenging
the January 21, 2014 Electronic Order of Magistrate Judge Mark Hornsby. See Record
Document 31. Jackson contends that such order is a “fraudulent alleged electronic order.”
Record Document 64 at 3. She further maintains that the Magistrate Judge “utilize[d]
judicial authority to favor Cook, Yancey with a purported electronic order.” Id.
The Court finds Jackson’s motion to be frivolous. Her allegations of fraud are
unsupported, as her only “evidence” is her self-serving conclusory accusations against
court staff and/or Cook, Yancey, King & Galloway. Additionally, she has cited no legal

authority to support her position that a Magistrate Judge is forbidden from entering
electronic orders. The Court further denies Jackson’s request for additional time to file a
reply brief, as this Court does not believe it would benefit from further briefing on the issues
presented and allowing additional time for Jackson to file a reply brief would not serve the
interests of judicial economy.
Jackson also seeks a ruling on her October 6, 2014 Motion/Request for Entry of
Default, which she contends was never ruled upon. See Record Document 64 at 4. Such
motion was never ruled upon because the Clerk of Court issued a notice to Jackson on
October 8, 2014, explaining that “Entry of Default cannot be entered as parties have filed
an Answer in this case.” Therefore, the Motion to Strike, for Ruling on October 6, 2014
Rule 55(b)(2) Motion, & for Extension of Time to File Reply Memorandum (Record
Document 64) is DENIED.
Rule 59 Motion
On June 11, 2015, this Court entered a final judgment in this matter. See Record
Document 60. Jackson appears to be seeking to alter or amend such judgment under Rule
59(e). 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). The Fifth Circuit “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.”

Templet v.

HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-479 (5th Cir. 2004). Instead, Rule 59(e) motions
serve the narrow purpose of permitting a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or
to present newly discovered evidence. See id. at 479. “Relief under Rule 59(e) is also
appropriate when there has been an intervening change in the controlling law.” Schiller v.
Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). “Reconsideration of a

Page 2 of 3

judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Id.
Jackson’s Rule 59(e) motion does not present a manifest error of law or fact; newly
discovered evidence; and/or an intervening change in the controlling law. She simply
reurges and rehashes her unfounded and conclusory allegations of fraud against various
parties, Magistrate Judge Hornsby, Clerk of Court staff, and the undersigned. This Court
has previously addressed and dismissed similar types of allegations at least three times.
See Record Documents 57, 58, 59, & 60. Accordingly, the Rule 59(e) motion (Record
Document 61) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 6th day of October, 2015.

Page 3 of 3