Gallipeau v. Martin et al
Filing
8
ORDER denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on June 27, 2013. (lda)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
DENNIS M. GALLIPEAU, #16472-171
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-cv-7-DCB-MTP
M. MARTIN and T. MOORE
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion [7] for Reconsideration entered March 7,
2013. Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, moves the Court to reconsider the
Memorandum Opinion [5] entered on February 13, 2013, dismissing this request for writ of
mandamus. Because Plaintiff’s Motion [7] was filed within 28 days after the entry of the
judgment, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion [7] is in the nature of a motion to alter or
amend a judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 58. Having considered the
issues raised in the Motion [7], the Court finds that the Motion is not well-taken and should be
denied.
In order to obtain relief under Rule 59(e), the moving party “must clearly establish either
a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence” and the request for
relief “cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the
judgment issued.” Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863-64 (5th Cir.2003)(citation
omitted). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has stated that when deciding
a Motion filed pursuant to Rule 59(e), a district court should consider the following noninclusive factors: (1) the reasons for the plaintiff’s default; (2) the importance of the evidence to
the plaintiff’s case; (3) whether the evidence was available to the plaintiffs before they
responded to the underlying motion; and (4) the likelihood that the defendants will suffer unfair
prejudice if the case is reopened. Sturges v. Moore, 73 Fed. App’x 777, 778 (5th Cir.
2003)(citing Ford v. Elsbury, 32 F.3d 931, 937-38 (5th Cir. 1994)). Litigants considering a Rule
59(e) motion have been “strongly cautioned” to carefully consider the grounds for such a
motion. Atkins v. Marathon LeTorneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 n.1 (S.D. Miss. 1990).
“Whatever may be the purpose of Rule 59(e), it should not be supposed that it is intended to give
an unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.” Id. at 626.
As previously explained by the Court in the Memorandum Opinion [5] entered on
February 13, 2013, Plaintiff did not established and the Court did not find the drastic remedy of
mandamus necessary to Plaintiff’s circumstances. After thorough consideration of the Motion
[7] submitted, the entire Court record and relevant case law, the Court concludes that Plaintiff
has failed to satisfy the requirements for obtaining relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See e.g., Templet v. Hydrochem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir.
2004) (“Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be
used sparingly.”). Therefore, it is hereby,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion [7] for Reconsideration is denied.
SO ORDERED this the 27th
day of June
, 2013.
s/David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?