Hunter v. County of St. Louis et al
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Docket No. 9 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 12/7/2017. (CLO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ALBERT COREY HUNTER,
COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
No. 4:17CV2380 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Albert Corey Hunter’s Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment. (Docket No. 9). The motion will be denied.
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County of St. Louis,
Jennifer L. Hill, Albert Hunter, Jr., Marsha L. Goesman, Betty Doe, Jane Doe, and John Doe.
Briefly, plaintiff alleged that Hill interfered with his parental rights and his parent-child
relationship, isolated his children from him, intercepted communications between him and his
children, and created a negative relationship between him and his children. He characterized
Hill’s actions as criminal and amounting to kidnapping, and he claimed that Hunter, Goesmann
and the Doe defendants aided Hill. Plaintiff also claimed that a judge issued an ex parte order
and full order of protection against him, and that this amounted to a negligent and wrongful act
and influenced the County of St. Louis Court to interfere with his parental rights. As relief,
plaintiff asked this Court to order Hill to deliver his children to a member of his family, and
award him monetary damages. On November 9, 2017, this Court dismissed this action without
prejudice after determining that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
Plaintiff now moves this Court to reconsider that order. In support, plaintiff claims, inter
alia, that he did not know how to set forth his claims; that he is the parent of his children and Hill
executed a plot to take them; that St. Louis County had policies rooted in feminism and
prejudice; that St. Louis County wrongfully allowed an order of protection to issue against him;
that fathers have parental rights; and that the defendants’ actions have caused him to suffer.
Plaintiff refers to Hill using offensive names, and the motion includes a long rant in which he
sets forth numerous insults against her. He asks that this Court “reinstate the civil process and
litigation against the named defendants based upon the stated claims and causes of action.”
(Docket No. 9 at 15).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motions “serve the limited function of correcting
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” United States v.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Innovative Home
Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Associates of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir.
1998)). Such motions do not allow a party to re-litigate matters previously resolved by the court,
or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been presented prior to the entry of
judgment, unless good cause is shown for such failure. Holder v. United States, 721 F.3d 979,
986 (8th Cir. 2013); Innovative Home Health Care, 141 F.3d at 1286.
Upon review of the instant motion, the Court concludes that it fails to point to any
manifest errors of law or fact, or any newly discovered evidence. Instead, the motion can be said
to merely revisit old arguments, or attempt to raise new ones without providing good cause for
the failure to raise them prior to the entry of judgment. Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to relief
under Rule 59(e), and the motion will be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
(Docket No. 9) is DENIED.
Dated this 7th day of December, 2017
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
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?