Clayton v. Brennan et al

Filing 145

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Rosalind A. Clayton's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 141 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 12/22/20. (JAB)

Case: 4:18-cv-01039-JAR Doc. #: 145 Filed: 12/22/20 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #: 4164

UNITEJ>i STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ROSALIND A. CLAYTON,
Plaintiff,
V.

LOUIS DEJOY,
Postmaster General
United States Postal Service, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:18-CV-01039-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This closed matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Rosalind A. Clayton's Motion for
Reconsideration. (Doc. 141 ). Defendant United States Postal Service ("USPS") has responded.
(Doc. 143). For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be denied.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rosalind A. Clayton is an African American woman who worked as a Mail
Processing Clerk in the USPS' Proce~sing and Distribution Center in St. Louis Missouri. (Doc. 77
at ,r,r 1-2). On June 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court alleging that Defendants USPS and
American Postal Workers Union ("APWU") violated various federal statutes and discriminated
against Plaintiff on the basis of her race, gender, age, and disability status. (Doc. 1). A large portion
of Plaintiffs allegations were dismissed as either non-exhausted or time barred. (Doc. 97).
Subsequently, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all remaining
claims. (Docs. 139-40). Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration and supporting
memorandum oflaw pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) on December 12, 2020. (Docs. 141-42).

Case: 4:18-cv-01039-JAR Doc. #: 145 Filed: 12/22/20 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #: 4165

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A district court has broad di~cretion in determining whether to grant a motion to alter or

amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R.:Civ. P. 59(e). United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist.,
440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006). :Rule 59(e) motions "serve the limited function of correcting
manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence." Innovative Home Health Care v.

P.T.-0.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations
omitted). Rule 59(e) grants a district court the power to "rectify its own mistakes in the period
immediately following the entry of judgment." White v. New Hampshire Dep 't ofEmp 't Sec., 455
U.S. 445,450 (1982). A Rule 59(e) n:iotion to alter or amend judgment must accordingly show (1)
an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not available
previously; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. See

Bannister v. Armontrout, 807 F. Supp. 516, 556 (W.D. Mo. 1991). This Court will liberally
construe Plaintiff's prose motion for reconsideration. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).

III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs motion is directed toward nine different Orders by this Court. (Doc. 142 at 1).

Rule 59(e) motions must be filed within 28 days from entry of judgment, and there is "no
possibility of an extension." Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1703 (2020) (citing Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(b)(2) (prohibiting extensions toiRule 59(e) deadline)). Eight of the Orders Plaintiff seeks to
challenge were entered over 28 days ago, meaning Plaintiffs motion is untimely as to these Orders.

See United States v. Mask ofKa-Nefer-Nefer, 752 F.3d 737, 743 (8th Cir. 2014)("[A] district court
lacks jurisdiction over an untimely Rule 59(e) motion."). 1 Many of the Orders Plaintiff seeks to
challenge are also collateral and not final judgments susceptible to a Rule 59(e) motion. The

1

Plaintiff's motion is time-barred as to the following Orders: Docs. 9, 11, 30, 88, 97, 102, 119, and 127.

Case: 4:18-cv-01039-JAR Doc. #: 145 Filed: 12/22/20 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #: 4166

motion is timely and properly broug°'t, however, as to this Court's granting of summary judgment
:

in favor of Defendants. (Docs. 139-lfO).
I

Plaintiffs motion does not identify any change in controlling law or new evidence. Instead,
Plaintiff simply repeats allegations previously made, including that this Court has adopted a "false
narrative scheme" and that its judgment has been "procured by fraud." (Doc. 142 at 5). As to the
entry of summary judgment specifically, Plaintiff claims that the Court failed to accommodate her
medical emergency or provide sufficient time to respond to Defendants' briefing. (Id. at 11). In
fact, the Court accepted Plaintiffs lat¢ filings as operative when determining if summary judgment
was warranted. (Doc. 139 at 1 n.1 ('~Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in its discretion,
this Court accepts the subsequent responses as the operative responses.")). Plaintiff also asserts
that she was "unable to conduct [her] discovery." (Doc. 142 at 10). This Court provided Plaintiff
multiple opportunities to engage in limited discovery, which Plaintiff failed to do, and only
proceeded without discovery after Plaintiff explicitly stated that the Court "should proceed to
consideration of the Motion for Summary Judgment already filed in this matter." (Doc. 138 at 1).
Plaintiff provides no new evidence or additional support for her position, nor does she
identify any clear error of law. Instead, Plaintiff rehashes her voluminous arguments, which the
Court declines to reconsider here. "Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it
'may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have
been raised prior to the entry of jud~ment."' Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471,485 n.5
(2008) (quoting 11 Charles Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d
ed. 1995)). Because Plaintiff has simply repeated arguments previously addressed by this Court
and failed to demonstrate any manifest error of law, the motion will be denied.

Case: 4:18-cv-01039-JAR Doc. #: 145 Filed: 12/22/20 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #: 4167

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Rosalind A. Clayton's Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 141) is DENIED.

Dated this 22nd day of December, 2020.

JO
OSS
U N ~ E S DISTRICT JUDGE