Saylor v. State of Nebraska, et al.

Filing 230

ORDER that plaintiff's motion to reconsider, Filing No. 225, is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

JAMES SAYLOR,
Plaintiff,

4:12CV3115

vs.
ORDER
RANDY KOHL, M.D.; DENNIS
BAKEWELL, ROBERT HOUSTON,
NATALIE BAKER, M.D.; MOHAMMAD
KAMAL, M.D.; CAMERON WHITE, PhD.;
MARK WEILAGE, PhD.; FRED BRITTEN,
KARI PEREZ, Ph.D; and CORRECT
CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, Filing No. 225,
this Court’s Memorandum and Order, Filing No. 222.

Defendant Correct Care

Solutions, LLC (“CCS”) filed a brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, Filing
No. 229. In its Memorandum and Order, this Court dismissed the claims against Kohl,
Bakewell, Houston, White, Weilage, Britten, and Perez.

The Court also granted

defendants Baker's and CCS's motions for summary judgment and dismissed all of
Saylor's claims against defendants Baker and CCS. The Court denied defendants Kohl,
Bakewell, Houston, White, Weilage, Britten, and Perez's motion for judgment on the
pleadings as moot.
Plaintiff asks this Court to allow him to file a third amended complaint and add an
entirely new claim for a violation of the American with Disabilities Act allegedly because
he has post-traumatic stress syndrome. The Court agrees with the defendant that this
will not be allowed. First, plaintiff has made no showing that he has met the standards

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) and 60(b) (grounds for
relief from order)1. Next, plaintiff already amended his complaint in this case. At no
point during this time did plaintiff ever ask to include an American Disabilities Act Claim
in his case. Motions to reopen a case after dismissal in order to allow amendments to
the complaint are “disfavored.” U.S. ex rel. Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc., 559 F.3d 818,
824 (8th Cir. 2009). Further, Rule 59(e) motions “serve the limited function of correcting
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” U.S. v.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged that the Court committed any errors of law or fact.
Nor has he contended that he has new evidence for this claim. In fact, it appears that
this cause of action has existed throughout the case. The Court finds no good reason
to permit the plaintiff to amend his complaint.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, Filing No.
225, is denied.

Dated this 6th day of February, 2017.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge

1

These grounds include: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,
or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying
it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed, R, Civ. P. 60(b).

2