Robinson v. Stubblefield et al
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) [Doc. # 61] is denied.. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 6/3/14. (KKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DARREN DETERICH ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
EUGENE STUBBLEFIELD, et al.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:12-CV-1359 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff to alter or amend
judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Defendants oppose the motion, and the
issues are fully briefed.
I.
Background
On July 30, 2012, plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and declaratory relief against Gene
Stubblefield, Charles Bryson, Dr. Susan Singer, Raecheal Handson, Joseph Ribaudo,
Lelia Beathea, and Corizon Medical Group. [Doc. #1]. At all times relevant to the
complaint, plaintiff was confined in the St. Louis City Justice Center (SLCJC).
Plaintiff alleged that on August 25, 2011, two inmates kicked him in the head
and stabbed him in the neck and torso. Following this altercation, plaintiff was seen
by Dr. Singer and nurses Handson, Ribaudo, and Beathea. Plaintiff alleged that these
individuals were deliberately indifferent to his medical condition in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff further alleged that Corizon Medical Group failed to
properly train its medical staff, which resulted in negligence and failure to provide
adequate medial care to plaintiff.
Plaintiff also asserted claims against Stubblefield (the Commissioner of
Corrections for the City of St. Louis) for deliberate indifference to his right to be free
from violent attacks and Charles Bryson (the Director of Public Safety for the City of
St. Louis) for failure to issue citations for maintenance violations at the SLCJC.
On June 28, 2013, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. [Doc. ##
27, 29]. On January 30, 2013, after careful review of the record, the Court granted
defendants’ motions. The Court found that Stubblefield and Bryson were entitled to
qualified immunity in their individual capacities; that plaintiff failed to allege sufficient
facts to support an Eighth Amendment violation claim against Bryson in his official
capacity; that medical records reflected that plaintiff received proper medical treatment
from Singer, Handson, Ribaudo, and Beathea; and that plaintiff failed to show that
Corizon Medical group had a policy, practice, or custom of deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs of persons similar to plaintiff. [Doc. #56].
On March 14, 2014, plaintiff filed the instant motion, requesting that the Court
alter or amend its January 30, 2013 order.
II.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) was adopted to clarify a district court’s
power to correct its own mistakes in the time period immediately following entry of
judgment. Norman v. Arkansas Dep’t of Educ., 79 F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 1996)
(citing White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employ’t Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (1982)). Rule
59(e) motions serve a limited function of correcting “manifest errors of law or fact[.]”
Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d
1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation and citations omitted). Such motions
cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender legal theories, or raise arguments
which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment. Id.
-2-
Plaintiff argues that this Court’s order granting defendants’ motions for
summary judgment contains manifest errors of law and fact. However, plaintiff has
not identified any specific errors for the Court to reconsider. Instead, plaintiff refers
to the allegations in his complaint and to the exhibits that he previously attached to his
memoranda in opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment, in order to
argue that he had submitted sufficient evidence to withstand a dismissal of his claims.
See Doc. ## 41, 42].
Because rule 59(e) motions serve a limited function of correcting manifest errors
of law or fact, the Court shall deny plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend. Prior to issuing
its January 30, 2014 decision, the Court reviewed all of plaintiff’s filings in this action,
which included all of the issues and facts that were presented and raised in plaintiff’s
petition, his memoranda in opposition to the motions for summary judgment, and all
supplemental documents. After a full review of the record, the Court addressed the
merits of plaintiff’s arguments and plaintiff has not shown any manifest errors in that
decision.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) [Doc. # 61] is denied.
____________________________
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 3rd day of June, 2014.
-3-
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?