Boyd v. BJC Health System et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Motion to Reconsider January 29, 2018 Memorandum and Order, construed as a Motion to Reconsider under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 62 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 03/07/2018. (KCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SHARNICE JANAY BOYD,
BJC HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a BJC,
HEALTH CARE and CHRISTIAN HOSPITAL
No. 4:17CV814 RLW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider the Court's
Memorandum and Order of January 29, 2018. 1 (ECF No. 62) In that Order, the Court dismissed
Plaintiffs claims of race, disability, and gender discrimination against Defendant Christian
Hospital Northeast-Northwest ("Christian Hospital") for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. The Court also granted Defendant BJC Health System d/b/a BJC HealthCare's Motion
("BJC") to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing all claims
against BJC. (ECF No. 59) Now pending is Plaintiffs motion to reconsider. The motion is
fully briefed and ready for disposition. Upon thorough review of the motion and related
memoranda, the Court will deny Plaintiffs motion.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to reconsider the Court's Memorandum and Order of January
29, 2018 under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff requests
that the Court alter or amend its judgment and allow her race and disability claims to go forward
While Plaintiff references a "motion" in her memorandum, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not
file a proper motion. However, based on Plaintiffs prose status, the Court will construe
Plaintiffs memorandum as a motion to reconsider.
against Christian Hospital, as well as all discrimination claims to go forward against BJC. In
support, Plaintiff attaches a letter to the EEOC that she alleges was attached to her amended
charge of discrimination. (Pl.'s Ex. 1, ECF No. 62-1) Defendants respond that Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate that she is entitled to relief under either Rule 59(e) or 60(b).
"A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant or deny a motion to
alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e)." United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist.,
440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). "Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited
function of correcting 'manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.'"
Id. (quoting Innovative Home Health Care v. P. T-0. T Assoc. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d
1284, 1286 (8th Cir.1998) (internal quotation omitted)). Motions under 59(e) "'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."' Id. (quoting Innovative Home Health Care, 141
F.3d at 1286). "To prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion, the movant must show that (1) the evidence
was discovered after trial; (2) the movant exercised due diligence to discover the evidence before
the end of trial; (3) the evidence is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (4) a
new trial considering the evidence would probably produce a different result." Id. "A motion to
reconsider 'cannot be used to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to the issuance
of judgment."' Adams v. Campbell, No. 2:12 cv-00024HEA, 2014 WL 117568, at *1 (E.D. Mo.
Jan. 13, 2014) (quoting Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir.1988)).
Similarly, under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a court order for several
reasons including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence,
fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct by an opposing party, or any other reason that justifies
relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(l)-(3), (6). '"Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function:
to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.'" Arnold v.
ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hagerman, 839 F.2d at 414
(quotations and citations omitted)). "The district court has wide discretion in ruling on a Rule
60(b) motion .... " Jones v. Swanson, 512 F.3d 1045, 1049 (8th Cir. 2008).
"authorizes relief based on certain enumerated circumstances (for example, fraud, changed
conditions, and the like). It is not a vehicle for simple reargument of the merits." Broadway v.
Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 1999).
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she is entitled to relief under
either Rule 59(e) or 60(b ). First, the evidence Plaintiff now presents, a letter allegedly attached
to her amended charge of discrimination, is not new evidence. Plaintiff submitted the amended
charge of discrimination and Right to Sue Notices with her pleadings. Plaintiff had ample
opportunities to also submit the attachment to the amended charge in her many responses to
Christian Hospital's motion to dismiss and BJC's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, as
well as her own summary judgment motion. As stated above, motions under 59( e) cannot be
used to introduce new evidence which could have been raised prior to entry of judgment. Metro.
St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d at 934.
Likewise, under Rule 60(b)(3)2 Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate fraud or misconduct on
the part of Defendants. "To prevail on a Rule 60(b)(3) motion, the movant must show, 'with
clear and convincing evidence, that the opposing party engaged in a fraud or misrepresentation
that prevented the movant from fully and fairly presenting its case.'" Id. at 935 (quoting Harley
v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866, 870 (8th Cir.2005) (internal quotation omitted)). Plaintiff fails to make
Plaintiff does not specify which subsection of Rule 60(b) she claims entitles her to relief.
However, the Defendant notes and the Court agrees, that Plaintiff requests relief under
subsection (3) for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by Defendant for failing to disclose
the attachment to the Court. (Pl.'s Response pp. 8-9, ECF No. 64)
such a showing. Plaintiff contends that Defendants submitted an incomplete amended charge of
discrimination to the Court. However, Plaintiff acknowledges that she possessed the documents
during the time period that she responded to Christian Hospital's motion to dismiss and BJC's
motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, wherein Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to
exhaust her administrative remedies. (ECF Nos. 44-46) The Court finds no fraud or
misrepresentation on the part of Defendants that prevented Plaintiff from fully and fairly
litigating this case. There is no indication that Defendants intentionally withheld evidence from
Plaintiff or the Court; instead the evidence in this case was Plaintiffs own charge of
discrimination that she filed with the EEOC. Thus, the Court finds that relief is not available
under Rule 60(b)(3). See Harrison v. Commercial Woodworking Co., No. 4:08CV00082 ERW,
2008 WL 5105130, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 1, 2008) (finding a mere allegation of
misrepresentation did not amount to clear and convincing evidence of a knowing and intentional
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Motion to
Reconsider January 29, 2018 Memorandum and Order, construed as a Motion to Reconsider
under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 62) is DENIED.
Dated this 7th day of March, 2018.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?