Evans v. Santos et al

Filing 263

ORDER denying 259 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 1/3/18. (jla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
TIMOTHY N. EVANS

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 4:15-CV-72-DMB-JMV

DR. JUAN SANTOS, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND
Before the Court is Timothy N. Evans’ motion to amend his complaint. Doc. #259.
I
Background
On June 4, 2015, Evans filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint against various Mississippi
State Penitentiary (“MSP”) employees and medical providers, alleging that he was denied medical
attention in retaliation for filing a complaint about his living conditions, and because of officials’
desire to discriminate against him based on his race.1 Doc. #1. On February 14, 2017, this Court
granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and entered a final judgment dismissing this
action with prejudice. Doc. #253; Doc. #254.
Following the dismissal of this action, Evans requested and was granted an extension to
file a motion seeking relief from the Court’s judgment. Doc. #257; Doc. #258. On April 14,
2017, Evans submitted a new §1983 complaint form to the Court alleging that various MSP
employees and medical providers have retaliated against him and denied him medical care because
he is a member of the Caucasian race. Doc. #259. The pleading was docketed by the Clerk of
the Court as a motion for reconsideration but United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden
subsequently ordered Evans to notify the Court within twenty (20) days of May 22, 2017, whether

1

Evans has amended his complaint numerous times. See Docs. #6, #9, #10, #13, #14, #18, #22, #24.

he intended the new complaint to serve as a new action or as a motion for reconsideration. See
Doc. #261. Despite acknowledging receipt of Judge Virden’s order on May 26, 2017, Evans
failed to clarify the nature of the filing. Because Evans failed to respond to Judge Virden’s order,
and because the complaint alleges that Evans was retaliated against and denied medical care
because of his race, the Court will treat the complaint as a motion to amend his original complaint.
II
Discussion
Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) “endows a district court with ‘virtually
unlimited discretion’ to allow amendments before entry of judgment, that discretion narrows
considerably after entry of judgment.” Vielma v. Eureka Co., 218 F.3d 458, 468 (5th Cir. 2000).
“Post-judgment amendment to a complaint can only occur once the judgment itself is vacated
under [Federal Rules] 59 or 60.” Id. When a party seeks to amend his complaint after entry of
judgment, the Fifth Circuit has “consistently upheld the denial of leave to amend where the party
seeking to amend has not clearly established that he could not reasonably have raised the new
matter prior to the trial court’s merits ruling.” Id. Thus, leave to amend is properly denied when
a prisoner “fails to show he could not have amended his complaint before dismissal.” Parker v.
Fisk, 487 Fed. Appx. 148, 150 (5th Cir. 2012).
In the motion to amend his complaint, Evans fails to show that he could not have amended
his complaint before dismissal—he simply re-urges the same claims he alleged in his original
complaint. Evans also presents the same evidence that the Court considered in making its prior
rulings.

As such, amendment will not be allowed.

See id. at 150 (“[Plaintiff’s] proposed

amended complaint is virtually indistinguishable from his original complaint; therefore [an
amendment] would have been futile.”).

2

III
Conclusion
Because Evans has failed to show why he could not have amended his complaint before
dismissal, his motion to amend [259] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of January, 2018.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3