COUSINS et al v. HIGGINS et al
Filing
28
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - denying 25 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment - By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mnw)
DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ROBERT L. COUSINS
JUDY A. COUSINS,
AND
PLAINTIFFS
V.
KEITH HIGGINS, HEATH HIGGINS,
TADD JEWETT, MATTHEW
TETREAULT AND MATTHEW
LINDSLEY,
DEFENDANTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO. 1:14-CV-515-DBH
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
asks me to change my determination that the plaintiffs Cousins did not state a
federal claim1 related to the fire that destroyed their home and restaurant (Cap’n
Nemo’s) in Bass Harbor, part of Tremont, Maine. The motion is DENIED.
Motions for reconsideration are granted only “where the movant shows a
manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence.” Prescott v. Higgins, 538
F.3d 32, 45 (1st Cir. 2008). The Cousins fail to meet that standard. “[A] party
moving for Rule 59(e) relief may not repeat arguments previously made” in
opposing the motion to dismiss. Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Díaz-Santiago, 674 F.3d
21, 32 (1st Cir. 2012).
I declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over attendant state law claims. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367.
1
On June 15, 2015, I issued an Order in this case granting the defendants’
motion to dismiss (without prejudice as to assertion of the state law claims in
state court) and denying the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint. In that
Order, I ruled: 1) the Cousins did not assert that the defendants were acting
under color of law when they allegedly stole from the Cousins’ property; 2) the
firefighters’ failure to extinguish the fire was not a substantive due process
violation, as the Constitution does not require cities to provide the public with
fire protection; 3) the Cousins did not adequately allege that their speech
motivated the firefighters’ treatment of Cap’n Nemo’s during the fire; 4) the
Cousins did not meet the “very significant burden” of identifying others similarly
situated but treated differently for purposes of the class-of-one equal protection
claim; 5) the equal protection class-of-one claim was not available to the Cousins
for their challenge to the firefighting decisions that were made on December 4,
2013; 6) section 1985(3) did not “reach conspiracies motivated by economic or
commercial animus”; 7) the Cousins failed to allege any facts that the defendants
conspired against them because Mr. Cousin is a veteran or has a disability; 8)
failure of the section 1985 claim doomed the section 1986 neglect-to-prevent-aconspiracy claim; 9) the amended complaint failed to assert that it was Robert
Cousins’ disability that motivated the defendants’ conduct with respect to the
fire; and 10) none of the Cousins’ submissions pleaded a pattern of racketeering
activity. Decision and Order on Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss and Pls.’ Mot. to Amend
Compl. (June 15, 2015) (ECF No. 23).
Now in this motion, the Cousins again assert violations of their right to
freedom of speech under the First Amendment, Substantive and Procedural Due
2
Process
violations,
Fourteenth
Amendment
Equal
Protection
violations,
discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and claims under
Sections 1985 and 1986. Pls.’ Mot. to Alter or Amend J. (July 14, 2015) (ECF
No. 25). But they do not show “manifest errors of law or fact.” Markel Am. Ins.
Co., 674 F.3d at 32. Instead, they “press . . . unsuccessful arguments a second
time in the hope that, by repetition, the court will see them [the plaintiffs’] way.”
Widi v. McNeil, No. 2:12-cv-188-JAW, 2014 WL 640286, at *1 (D. Me. Feb. 18,
2014), appeal dismissed (Oct. 8, 2014).
I considered all their arguments
seriously the first time, and I see no reason to amend or alter the judgment. If
the Cousins disagree with my ruling, their remedy is to appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Now, for the first time, the Cousins plead that the prior owner of the
building also experienced a fire, but that in his case, the firefighters allowed the
owner to extinguish the fire before it had done “any substantial damage.” Pls.’
Mot. to Alter or Amend J. at 9 (July 14, 2015) (ECF No. 25). This, they say, is
evidence of different treatment of others, similarly situated—such that they can
assert a cognizable “class of one” equal protection claim. But the Cousins do not
claim that this evidence is “newly discovered.” Cf. Prescott, 538 F.3d at 45 (Rule
59(e) motion may have prevailed if claimant had pointed to “newly discovered
evidence.”). A motion for reconsideration is “not the place to present arguments
that could, and should, have been raised before the court's pulling of its
judgment trigger.” Markel Am. Ins. Co., 674 F.3d at 32. Rule 59(e) motions for
reconsideration “are aimed at re consideration, not initial consideration.” Id. at
33 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).
3
I conclude that the Cousins have failed to show grounds that, under Rule
59(e), warrant any alteration or amendment of the judgment. The motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?