Brooks v. The City of St. Louis et al

Filing 184

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Court's April 29, 2021 Docket Order (ECF No. 164 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Common Law Negligence Claim against Defendant Jermanda Adams in C ount I remains pending. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Louis' Motion for Relief from Court Orders (ECF No. 168 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File her First Amended C omplaint (ECF No. 167 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than December 22, 2021. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall serve their answers within twenty-one (21) days after the filing of Plaintiff's amended complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Request for Oral Argument (ECF No. 177 ) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint proposed scheduling plan no later than January 22, 2022. (Amended/Supplemental Pleadings due by 12/22/2021. Joint Scheduling Plan due by 1/22/2022.) Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 12/13/2021. (TMT)

Case: 4:17-cv-00981-RLW Doc. #: 184 Filed: 12/13/21 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: 4000
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CECELIA PERRY, et al., on behalf of all
Beneficiaries, pursuant to Section 537.080,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17CV-981 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Court’s April 29, 2021
Docket Order (ECF No. 164) and Defendant City of St. Louis’ Motion for Relief from Court
Orders (ECF No. 168), following the issuance of the Court’s Opinion and Judgment (ECF Nos. 42,
43) in Appeal No. 20-2950, which reversed in part this Court’s Memorandum and Order (ECF No.
148), and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s Opinion. The
Eighth Circuit reversed the decision of this Court and found that Defendant Jermanda Adams was
entitled to qualified immunity. In the Court’s April 29, 2021 Order, the Court found that Defendant
Jermanda Adams was entitled to qualified immunity, granted her motion for summary judgment,
and entered judgment in favor of Defendant Jermanda Adams on Count I and Count VI. Count I
was a claim for common law negligence against Defendant Adams and Count VI was a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Adams.

1

Case: 4:17-cv-00981-RLW Doc. #: 184 Filed: 12/13/21 Page: 2 of 6 PageID #: 4001
I.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Common Law Negligence
Claim in Count I
A. Standard of Review

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for “motions for reconsideration.”
Peterson v. The Travelers Indem. Co., 867 F.3d 992, 997 (8th Cir. 2017); Winfrey v. Ford Motor
Co., No. 4:19-CV-00889-DGK, 2020 WL 5541081, at *1 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 20, 2020). Courts
“typically construe [a motion for reconsideration] as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the
judgment or as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment.” Ackerland v. United States, 633
F.3d 698, 701 (8th Cir. 2011). Rule 60(b) allows relief from an order due to: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to meet Rule 59(e)'s deadline; (3) fraud,
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied,
released, or discharged judgment; a judgment based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed
or vacated; or when applying the judgment prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other
reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); see also Elder–Keep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979,
984 (8th Cir. 2006). “Relief under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy that is justified only
under exceptional circumstances.” Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Natl. Park Med. Ctr., Inc., 413
F.3d 897, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
“A district court has wide discretion over whether to grant a motion for reconsideration of a
prior order[.]” SPV-LS, LLC v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 912 F.3d 1106, 1111 (8th Cir.
2019)(citing In re Charter Commc'ns, Inc., Sec. Litig., 443 F.3d 987, 993 (8th Cir. 2006)). “A
motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to identify facts or legal arguments that could have
been, but were not, raised at the time the relevant motion was pending.” Julianello v. K-V Pharm.
2

Case: 4:17-cv-00981-RLW Doc. #: 184 Filed: 12/13/21 Page: 3 of 6 PageID #: 4002
Co., 791 F.3d 915, 923 (8th Cir. 2015). “Nor may a motion for reconsideration serve to introduce
evidence that the movant could have produced before the district court decided the prior motion.”
SPV-LS, LLC, 912 F.3d at 1111 (citing Julianello, 791 F. 3d at 922; Hagerman v. Yukon Energy
Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (stating that motions for reconsideration cannot be used
to introduce new evidence or legal theories that “could have been adduced during pendency of the
summary judgment motion” (quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251
(7th Cir. 1987))). A district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for
reconsideration used for such an “impermissible purpose.” Julianello, 791 F.3d at 923.
B. Discussion
The Court erroneously omitted Plaintiff’s claim for common law negligence (Count I) as one
of the counts that remained pending in this action. The Court previously denied Defendant
Adams’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s common law negligence claim in Count I.
See ECF No. 148 at 8-12. Defendant Adams did not appeal this Court’s decision as to Count I,
and the Eighth Circuit’s opinion likewise did not address Count I.
Defendant Adams asks this Court to extrapolate from the Eighth Circuit’s opinion and recent
Missouri state court case law that this Court should grant summary judgment as to Count I. A
motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April 29, 2021 Order is not the proper vehicle for this
legal determination. It would be an “impermissible purpose” to allow the Court to consider Count
I on a motion for reconsideration when the Court previously denied summary judgment on that
Count and it was not previously appealed.

The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration to correct the Court’s April 29, 2021 Order, and revives Count I; Count I remains
pending in this action.

3

Case: 4:17-cv-00981-RLW Doc. #: 184 Filed: 12/13/21 Page: 4 of 6 PageID #: 4003
II.

Defendant City of St. Louis’ Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Section
1983 Failure to Train Claim in Count IV
The City of St. Louis (“the City”) asks this Court for relief from this Court’s July 1, 2019

and April 29, 2021 Orders (ECF No. 168). On April 5, 2021, the Eighth Circuit issued its
decision reversing this Court’s denial of summary judgment to Defendant Adams on Plaintiff’s §
1983 deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of suicide claim. The City asks the Court to
reconsider its Order denying the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the Eighth
Circuit’s Order. 1 The Eighth Circuit found that the City’s employee, Jermanda Adams, was
entitled to qualified immunity. In its opinion, the Eighth Circuit stated, “[h]ere, short of a suicide
risk which a mental health professional found to be absent, the plaintiffs do not identify what risk
of ‘serious harm’ Brison faced and what actual knowledge Adams possessed regarding any such
risk.” Perry v. Adams, 993 F.3d 584, 588 (8th Cir. 2021). The City maintains that it is entitled to
summary judgment on Plaintiff’s failure to train claim against a municipal employer. The City
argues since municipal employee Jermanda Adams has qualified immunity for the underlying
action giving rise to the claim, then the Court must also enter judgment in favor of the City on the
§1983 failure to train claim.
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not mention motions for reconsideration.”
Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir. 1999). “The process of seeking reconsideration
could be transformed into an endless chain of motions, filing a motion to reconsider the denial of
the motion to reconsider, ad infinitum.” Wright v. Foster, No. CV 13-1014, 2013 WL 6154723, at
*3 (D.S.D. Nov. 22, 2013); S. Dakota Wheat Growers Ass'n v. Chief Indus., Inc., No.
1:14-CV-01008-CBK, 2018 WL 8753724, at *1 (D.S.D. Oct. 17, 2018). The Court holds that a
motion for reconsideration is not the proper vehicle for the Court to consider the effect of the
1

The City did not appeal the District Court’s decision.
4

Case: 4:17-cv-00981-RLW Doc. #: 184 Filed: 12/13/21 Page: 5 of 6 PageID #: 4004
Eighth Circuit’s opinion on the City, particularly when the City did not appeal this Court’s
decision. The Court, therefore, denies the motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff must refile a
Motion for Summary Judgment if she wants the Court to consider this issue.2
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Court’s April
29, 2021 Docket Order (ECF No. 164) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Common Law Negligence
Claim against Defendant Jermanda Adams in Count I remains pending.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Louis’ Motion for Relief from
Court Orders (ECF No. 168) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File her
First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 167) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall file an amended

complaint no later than December 22, 2021.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall serve their answers within
twenty-one (21) days after the filing of Plaintiff’s amended complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Request for Oral Argument (ECF No.
177) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint proposed scheduling plan no
later than January 22, 2022.

2 In her response, Plaintiff also asks the Court to reconsider its ruling striking Fred Barker’s
affidavit and precluding him from testifying at trial due to the failure to disclose him. (ECF No.
174 at 8-10). The Court will not consider this issue because it was raised in an opposition brief
instead of as a separate motion. If Plaintiff wishes to raise this issue, she must file it as a separate
motion.
5

Case: 4:17-cv-00981-RLW Doc. #: 184 Filed: 12/13/21 Page: 6 of 6 PageID #: 4005
Dated this 13th day of December, 2021.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6