Aldridge v. Browning et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 25 MOTION for Reconsideration re 22 Order of Dismissal pursuant to 28USC1915(e)(2)(B), filed by Plaintiff George F. Aldridge, Jr. - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 25) is DENIED. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 11/21/2018. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
GEORGE F. ALDRIDGE, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEE BROWNING, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-cv-55-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon plaintiff George F. Aldridge, Jr.’s motion for
reconsideration. The motion will be denied.
Background
The history of this case is fully set forth in this Court’s prior orders. However, following
is a brief summary. Plaintiff initiated this civil action by filing a long, rambling, 69-page
complaint that was prepared in a manner that obscured what his actual claims were, and failed to
give the named defendants fair notice of the claims made against them. In consideration of
plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court gave plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. In doing so,
the Court clearly explained the deficiencies in the complaint, and clearly instructed plaintiff
about how to remedy them. Subsequently, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, but then moved
to withdraw it, and asked for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint. The
Court granted plaintiff’s request, and plaintiff subsequently filed a second amended complaint.
However, upon review, the Court noted the second amended complaint contained the same
defects as the original. In consideration of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court granted him leave
to file a third amended complaint. After seeking and receiving an extension of time, plaintiff

filed a third amended complaint. Upon review, the Court determined that plaintiff’s allegations
did not state any actionable claims, and dismissed the action without prejudice. Plaintiff now
moves for reconsideration.
Discussion
Petitioner did not frame his motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but it is
the functional equivalent of a motion under either Rule 59(e) or 60(b). Rule 59(e) motions
“serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence,” and allow a court to correct its own mistakes in the time immediately
following judgment.

Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Associates of the Black

Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998). Rule 60(b) provides for “extraordinary relief which
may be granted only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances,” and allows a
court to “relieve a party from a final judgment for, among other reasons, mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect.” MIF Realty L.P. v. Rochester Associates, 92 F.3d 752, 755 (8th
Cir. 1996), U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 320 F.3d 809, 815 (8th Cir.
2003) (internal citation omitted). Such motions do not allow a party to re-litigate matters
previously resolved by the court, or offer arguments or evidence that could have been presented
prior to the entry of judgment, unless good cause is shown for such failure. Holder v. United
States, 721 F.3d 979, 986 (8th Cir. 2013); Innovative Home Health Care, 141 F.3d at 1286.
The Court has reviewed the motion, and will decline to alter or amend its prior judgment.
The motion fails to point to any manifest errors of law or fact or any newly discovered evidence,
and it fails to set forth any exceptional circumstances justifying relief. Instead, the motion can be
said to simply revisit old arguments, which this Court has previously addressed. Plaintiff is

2

therefore not entitled to reconsideration of the dismissal of this action, and the motion will be
denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 25)
is DENIED.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal of this action would not be taken in good
faith.
Dated this 21st day of November, 2018.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3