Lofton v. Williams et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 29 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 11/18/20. (jla)

Case: 3:20-cv-00086-MPM-JMV Doc #: 30 Filed: 11/18/20 1 of 2 PageID #: 1869

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
JERRY LYNN LOFTON

PETITIONER

V.

NO. 3:20-CV-00086-MPM-JMV

WARDEN JESSE WILLIAMS and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

RESPONDENTS

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner’s motion [29] for reconsideration of
the Court’s November 4, 2020, Order denying Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a sur-rebuttal.
See Doc. # 28. Upon due consideration, the Court finds that the instant motion should be denied.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) “allows parties to seek reconsideration of
interlocutory orders . . . .” Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th Cir. 2017). Under
Rule 54(b):
[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all
the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the
action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the
entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and
liabilities.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Although the source of the court’s authority to revise or amend an order or
judgment is different for interlocutory orders than for final orders or judgments,
many of the same policy considerations apply both to motions for reconsideration
under Rule 54(b) and to motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e).
Accordingly, district courts . . . frequently apply the same standards to the two.
eTool Dev., Inc. v. Nat’l Semiconductor Corp., 881 F.Supp.2d 745, 748 (E.D. Tex. 2012)
(collecting cases).

Case: 3:20-cv-00086-MPM-JMV Doc #: 30 Filed: 11/18/20 2 of 2 PageID #: 1870

Under Fifth Circuit jurisprudence:
A rule 59(e) motion “calls into question the correctness of a judgment.” This Court
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. Rather, Rule 59(e) “serves the narrow purpose of allowing a party to
correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Templet v. HydroChemQ Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2004) (citations and alterations
omitted). “A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) must clearly establish
either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence and cannot be
used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.”
Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Petitioner fails to identify any manifest error of law or fact nor does he present any newly
discovered evidence. Instead, Petitioner merely repeats arguments in support of his federal
habeas petition. Beyond this, Petitioner offers absolutely no substantive argument as to why
reconsideration is warranted. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion [29] is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 18th day of November, 2020
/s/ Jane M. Virden
JANE M. VIRDEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2