Adams v. Campbell et al

Filing 74

OPINION,MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59 (e) and 60 (b), [Doc. No. 52 ], is denied. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 01/13/2014. (CLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GARY CAMPBELL, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:12 cv-00024HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from
Judgment for Fraud on the Court in Accord with Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Fed.
R.Civ.Proc. pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 59 (e) and 60 (b), [Doc. No. 52]. For
the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
On March 13, 2013, , the Court entered its order granting summary
judgment in favor of Defendants Chantey Goddert, Robert Griggs, Doug Prudden,
and Melissa Vetter. Plaintiff now seeks to have the Court reconsider the Order.
“Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it ‘may not be
used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’ 11 C. Wright & A. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, pp. 127-128 (2d ed.1995) (footnotes
omitted).” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 2617, n. 5

(2008). Rule 59(e) was adopted to clarify that “the district court possesses the
power to rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following the entry of
judgment.” White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445,
450, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982) (internal quotations omitted).
Moreover, “Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Innovative Home
Health Care, Inc. v. P.T .-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286
(8th Cir.1998),(internal punctuation and citations omitted). “Such motions cannot
be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments
which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.” United
States v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir.2006)
(quoting Innovative Home Health Care, 141 F.3d at 1286)).
District courts “will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration unless the
party demonstrates a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or demonstrates
new facts or legal authority that the party could not have previously produced with
reasonable diligence to the court.” Elder–Keep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 988 (8th
Cir.2006); Monsanto Co. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 2011 WL 322672 at
*4 (E.D.Mo. Jan.31, 2011); Arnold v. ADT Sec. Services, Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721
(8th Cir.2010). A motion to reconsider “cannot be used to raise arguments which
could have been raised prior to the issuance of judgment.” Hagerman v. Yukon

Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir.1988). District courts have “broad
discretion” in determining whether to reconsider judgment. Hagerman, 839 F.2d
at 413.
In his Motion, Movant attempts to persuade the Court to grant relief from its
findings which led to the conclusion that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law, there existing no genuine issues of material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P 56.
Plaintiff has presented nothing new, nor has he pointed the Court to any mistake
so severe as to establish manifest error. The Court articulated its reasoning in
finding that Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Nothing has
changed, nor should the judgment in this matter
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
pursuant to Rule 59 (e) and 60 (b), [Doc. No. 52], is denied.
Dated this 13th day of January, 2014.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE