Lesley v. Teague et al

Filing 166

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions to Amend-Alter Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed to Motion to Alter or Amend Summary Judgment [Doc. No.'s 161 and 164 ], are DENIED.. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 12/15/17. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RICHARD LESLEY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MS. JANE DOE TEAGUE, et al.,
Defendants,

No. 2:15CV59 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motions to Amend-Alter
Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed to Motion to Alter or Amend
Summary Judgment [Doc. No.’s 161 and 164]. The Motions are brought pursuant
to Rule 59(e). For the reasons set forth below, the Motions are denied.
On March 10, 2017, the Court entered its Opinion, Memorandum and Order
granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
ARule 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, 554 U.S. 471, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 2617, n. 5 (2008).
1

Rule 59(e) was adopted to clarify that Athe 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,
ARule 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). ASuch 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 Awill 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.@ ElderBKeep 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 Acannot be used to raise arguments which could
2

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 Abroad discretion@ in
determining whether to reconsider judgment. Hagerman, 839 F.2d at 413.
In his Motion, Plaintiff attempts to persuade the Court to grant relief from its
findings which led to the conclusion that Defendants were entitled to summary
judgment. Plaintiff has presented nothing new, nor has he pointed the Court to any
mistake so severe as to establish manifest error under Rule 59(e). He has not pointed
the Court to any circumstance from the record or otherwise to cause the court to
grant the relief now sought. Instead he has reiterated the same arguments which were
the basis of his complaint and response to the summary judgment motion. The Court
articulated its reasoning in finding that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Nothing has changed, nor should the Opinion, Memorandum and
Order in this matter be altered or amended under Rule 59(e).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions to Amend-Alter Summary
Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed to Motion to Alter or Amend Summary

3

Judgment [Doc. No.’s 161 and 164], are DENIED.
Dated this 15th day of December, 2017.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4