Salcido v. University of Southern Mississippi et al
ORDER denying 21 Motion to Clarify; denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on May 7, 2012. (KM)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11CV173-KS-MTP
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.
THIS MATTER is before the court on the Motion  for Reconsideration, or in the
Alternative, for Clarification of the court’s Order  entered on April 19, 2012. Having
considered the motion, the court finds that it should be denied.
On April 19, 2012, the court entered an Order  denying Plaintiff’s Motion 
Regarding Compliance with Court Order Pertaining to Procedural Status and Discovery Issues,
and stayed all discovery pending further order. In her Motion , Plaintiff asks the court to
reconsider its order denying discovery, or in the alternative, to clarify its order to state whether
narrowly-tailored discovery will be allowed.1
As stated in its Order , Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, for
Summary Judgment , claiming that Plaintiff’s claims are insufficiently pled, is currently
pending before the district judge. Thus, under Lion Boulos v. Wilson, 834 F.2d 504, 507 (5th
Cir. 1987), discovery may not proceed before this threshold issue is decided. The court stayed
all discovery pending further order. See Order .
This court enjoys the inherent power to “reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory
order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.” Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 551, 553 (5th
While the motion ostensibly now seeks “narrow” discovery, the scope of the discovery
requests outlined in the motion is quite broad and essentially amounts to full discovery. See
Motion  at 3-4.
Cir. 1981). Generally, “motions to reconsider are analyzed under Rule 59(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.”2 McDonald v. Entergy Operations, Inc., No. 5:03cv241BN, 2005 WL
1528611, at *1 (S.D. Miss. 2005). This court has “considerable discretion” in deciding whether
to grant a motion for reconsideration. See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350,
355 (5th Cir. 1993). However, granting a motion for reconsideration “is an extraordinary
remedy and should be used sparingly.” In re Pequeno, 240 Fed. App’x 634, 636 (5th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2004)).
A motion to reconsider is not “intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional chance
to sway the judge[,]” McDonald, 2005 WL 1528611, at *1 (citations omitted), and its purpose “is
not to re-debate the merits of a particular motion.” W.C. Bulley v. Fidelity Financial Servs. Of
Miss., Inc., No. 3:00cv522-BN, 2000 WL 1349184, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 8, 2000). Indeed,
“[i]f a party is allowed to address a court's reasons as to why a motion was or was not granted, it
would render the entire briefing process irrelevant and lead to endless motions to reconsider.”
There are only three grounds for which this court may grant a motion for reconsideration:
“(1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not previously
available, and (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” W.C.
Bulley, 2000 WL 1349184, at *2 (citations omitted). If one of these three grounds is not present,
Rule 59(e) is not technically applicable to Plaintiff’s motions since the Order  was
not a final “judgment.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54; 59(e); 72. However, several district courts
within the Fifth Circuit have applied the legal standards set forth in Rule 59(e) to motions to
reconsider interlocutory orders. See W.C. Bulley v. Fid. Fin. Servs. of Miss., Inc., No.
3:00cv522-BN, 2000 WL 1349184, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 8, 2000); Goldman v. Hartford Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., No. Civ.A. 03-0759, 2006 WL 861016, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 30, 2006); Martinez v.
Bohls Equip.Co., No. SA-04-CA-0120-XR, 2005 WL 1712214, at *1 (July 18, 2005).
Accordingly, the court will apply the same standard to the instant motion.
the court must deny the motion. Id. at *3.
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any of these grounds. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion
to Reconsider  should be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion  for Reconsideration, or in the Alternative, for Clarification of the
court’s Order  is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this 7th day of May, 2012.
s/ Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate 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?