Westbrooks v. White et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 9/3/15. (jtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

JOSEPH L. WESTBROOKS
V.

PLAINTIFF
NO. 4:15CV30-DMB-JMV

JENIFER WHITE, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff=s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 20, 2015,
memorandum opinion and final judgment dismissing the instant case for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted.
A pro se litigant’s motion for reconsideration is interpreted as a motion to amend
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) under the liberal standard set forth in
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Under Rule 59(e), an order may grant relief when: (1)
there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) the movant presents newly
discovered evidence that was previously unavailable, or (3) a manifest error of law or fact must
be corrected. Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003).
Here, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his right to due process by failing to
follow state statutes and administrative rules when adjudicating an action against him for
violating prison rules. The Court dismissed the case under Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995),
because Plaintiff’s punishment—a reduction in custody classification—was not severe enough to
trigger due process protections. In the present motion, Plaintiff simply reiterates the arguments
previously set forth in his complaint, which the Court has already rejected. Thus, Plaintiff has
neither asserted nor proven any of the justifications to amend the Court’s judgment under Rule

59(e). Plaintiff’s motion [10] for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of September, 2015.

/s/ Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE