Prewitt v. Mississippi State University

Filing 367

ORDER denying 364 Motion for Reconsideration re 362 Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law ; denying 366 Motion for Three-Judge Panel. Signed by Louis Guirola, Jr., on 10/22/2012. (BR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
MYRTLE LYNN PREWITT

PLAINTIFF

v.

CAUSE NO. 1:06CV338-LG-DAS

MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY

DEFENDANT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR THREE-JUDGE PANEL
BEFORE THE COURT are the Motion for Reconsideration [364] and the
Motion for a Three-Judge Panel [366] filed by Plaintiff Myrtle Lynn Prewitt. In her
Motions, Prewitt seeks reconsideration of this Court’s Order [362] denying her
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or for New Trial, and she requests a threejudge panel. The Court finds that these Motions should be denied.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), a motion for reconsideration may only be
granted if (1) there is a need to correct a manifest error in law or fact; (2) the
movant uncovered new evidence that was reasonably unknown prior to entry of the
judgment or order in question; or (3) an intervening change in controlling law
occurred. Schiller v. Physicians Res. Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003).
A Rule 59(e) Motion should not be used to relitigate matters that should have been
argued earlier, or that simply were not resolved to the movant’s satisfaction.
Mongrue v. Monsanto Co., 249 F.3d 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2001); Simon v. United
States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990). “These motions cannot be used to raise
arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.

Moreover, they cannot be used to argue a case under a new legal theory.” Ross v.
Mitchell, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005).
Prewitt’s Motion for Reconsideration repeats numerous arguments that have
previously been rejected by this Court. The only new argument presented by
Prewitt is her claim that a three-judge panel should be appointed. Prewitt claims
that the jury panel in her case did not represent a fair cross-section of the
community, because there was an insufficient number of African Americans on the
panel. She argues that African Americans are wrongfully excluded from the voter
rolls in Mississippi due to the exclusion of persons convicted of certain crimes. The
voter rolls are utilized for selecting jury panels in federal court. Prewitt argues that
the Mississippi Constitution provides that only those persons convicted of bribery,
forgery, and perjury should be excluded from the voter rolls but the State of
Mississippi has improperly expanded that list of crimes.
First, it should be noted that Article 12, Section 241 of the Mississippi
Constitution provides that persons convicted of the following crimes are not
permitted to vote: murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods
under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, and bigamy. Thus, Prewitt’s
assertions in this regard are incorrect. Second, Prewitt is not entitled to a threejudge panel, because she did not allege in her Amended Complaint that she was
denied the right to vote, and she did not challenge the constitutionality of the
apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of any statewide
legislative body. See 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1971(g). Finally, Prewitt’s
-2-

request for a three-judge panel is untimely. This case has already proceeded to
trial, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. Moreover, the trial
record will confirm that the Plaintiff did not object to the jury selected by the
parties, even after the Court invited counsel for the Plaintiff to make such an
objection if appropriate.
Prewitt’s Motion for Reconsideration is merely an attempt to reassert
arguments that have been previously rejected by this Court on numerous occasions.
She has also raised a belated request for a three-judge panel after the case has been
closed. As a result, Prewitt’s Motion for Reconsideration does not meet the
standards set forth by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and must be denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court finds that Prewitt’s Motions
should be denied. The parties have fully presented their arguments before this
Court, and it is now time for this matter to either conclude or proceed on appeal.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for
Reconsideration [364] and the Motion for a Three-Judge Panel [366] filed by
Plaintiff Myrtle Lynn Prewitt are DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 22nd day of October, 2012.

s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-