Hays v. State of Miss et al
ORDER denying re 10 MOTION for Reconsideration re 9 Judgment, 8 Order Dismissing Case filed by Howard Hays. Signed by District Judge Michael P. Mills on 11/6/17. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
STATE OF MISS, ET AL.
Plaintiff Howard Hays has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of this Court’s October
12, 2017, judgment dismissing his § 1983 lawsuit with prejudice. See Doc. #10. The Court
construes Hays’ motion as one to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. An order granting such relief is appropriate 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) it is necessary to correct a manifest error of law or fact.
Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003).
As the Court has already determined, res judicata bars this action, which is duplicative of
an earlier-filed action. See, e.g., Doc. #8 at 3; Hays v. Granderson, 4:15cv51-NBB-DAS (N.D.
Miss.). In the instant motion, Hays argues the merits of the claims asserted in the earlier-filed
action and not the Court’s ruling that this particular action is duplicative. Therefore, the Court
finds that Hays has failed to demonstrate that there is any basis for Rule 59 relief, and his motion
for reconsideration  is DENIED. If Hays wishes to challenge the Court’s ruling in the
earlier-filed action, he will need to file a motion for relief in that particular case.
SO ORDERED this 6th day of November, 2017.
/s/ Michael P. Mills
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?