Fouche v. Missouri American Water Company et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Kammick Fouche's motion for reconsideration or to otherwise set aside judgment is DENIED. [Doc. 29] Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 1/9/13. (KXS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

KAMMICK FOUCHE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MISSOURI AMERICAN WATER
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:11-CV-1622 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration or to otherwise set
aside judgment. Defendants opposed the motion, and plaintiff did not file a reply memorandum.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a “motion for reconsideration.”
Humphreys v. Roche Biomedical Labs., Inc., 990 F.2d 1078, 1081 (8th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff’s motion
involves the reconsideration of matters that were encompassed within the merits of the Court’s
judgment. Any motion questioning the correctness of a judgment is functionally a motion to alter or
amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), regardless of how the motion is styled. Innovative Home
Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998). See
also Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 827 (8th Cir. 2000); Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 862
F.2d 161, 168 n.13 (8th Cir. 1988). Therefore, the Court will construe plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration as a motion made pursuant to Rule 59(e).
A court has broad discretion in considering a Rule 59(e) motion. Hagerman v. Yukon Energy
Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 413 (8th Cir. 1988). 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 (1982) (internal
quotations omitted). A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted to correct a manifest error of law or fact,
or to consider newly-discovered evidence. See Hagerman, 890 F.2d at 414 (citation omitted). Such
a motion cannot be used to introduce new evidence that could have been produced while the
dispositive motion was pending. Chism v. W.R. Grace & Co., 158 F.3d 988, 992, n.4 (8th Cir.
1998); Hagerman, 839 F.2d at 414.
The arguments plaintiff makes in his one-page motion do not provide grounds for relief from
the judgment. Plaintiff has failed to establish a manifest error of law or fact, the discovery of new
evidence, or an intervening change in the law.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Kammick Fouche’s motion for reconsideration
or to otherwise set aside judgment is DENIED. [Doc. 29]

__________________________________
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 9th

day of January, 2013.

2