Derise v. Museo Ferrari Maranello

Filing 6

ORDER denying 5 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge S Maurice Hicks, Jr on 5/10/2022. (crt,Crick, S)

Case 5:22-cv-00381-SMH-MLH Document 6 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 44

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
BEAU DERISE

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-0381

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

MUSEO FERRARI MARANELLO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
ORDER

Before the Court is a miscellaneous filing by pro se Plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) Beau
Derise. See Record Document 5. The Clerk of Court has construed the filing as a Motion
to Reconsider this Court’s April 4, 2022 Order (Record Document 4), which provided:
IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. No. 1) filed on February 2,
2022, by Plaintiff be and is hereby STRICKEN from the record and this case
CLOSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) filed by Plaintiff on February 2, 2022, be and
is hereby DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff continue to seek permission
from the Chief Judge before filing any civil complaint and he is further
warned that filing additional frivolous lawsuits such as the current one and
the many he filed previously shall result in monetary sanctions being
imposed on him.
Id. at 4-5.

In its April 4, 2022 Order, the Court held that Plaintiff’s claims against

Defendant Museo Ferrari Maranellow, a corporation based in Italy, were “fanciful, wholly
incredible and clearly baseless.” Id. at 14. The Court further reasoned that any attempt
to amend the complaint would be futile. See id. at 14-15.

Case 5:22-cv-00381-SMH-MLH Document 6 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 45

Now, in his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff references “missing suppeanos”
[sic] and missing paperwork. Record Document 5 at 1. He seeks “to appeal the sanction
in these courts and . . . its cases that I have in it.” Id. Plaintiff is subject to a pre-filing
injunction requiring authorization from the chief judge of the district before any complaint
may be filed, transferred, or removed into this Court. See Derise v. U.S. District Court,
Case No. 6:21-cv-3669, Record Document 9. This injunction was issued after Plaintiff
was ordered to show cause at a hearing on December 27, 2021, why he should not be
so enjoined. He failed to appear at the show cause hearing. He now refers to missing
subpoenas and paperwork, but still does not explain his failure to appear at the show
cause hearing.
“Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that
should be used sparingly.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
Missing subpoenas and paperwork, without more, do not support the application of such
an extraordinary remedy. Based on the showing made in his motion, Plaintiff has failed
to justify reconsideration. 1
Accordingly,

As previously held by this Court in a recent order entered in Beau Derise v. John
M. Shaw Courthouse, Case No. 22-0379, Record Document 8, “if Plaintiff seeks an
opportunity to change his status as a sanctioned/barred litigant in this district, the proper
means of doing so is to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5)
requesting modification of the order which placed him on the sanctioned/barred litigants
list, under Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-3669 of the Lafayette Division of this Court. See Baum
v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181, 190–91 (5th Cir. 2008). He must be prepared
to show the Court that continuing to enforce the injunction against him is no longer
equitable.”
1

2

Case 5:22-cv-00381-SMH-MLH Document 6 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 46

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (Record Document 5) be and
is hereby DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 10th day of May, 2022.

3