Perez et al v. Does 1-10 et al

Filing 23

ORDER that the plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Filing No. 15 ) is denied. Ordered by Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
IRMA PEREZ, JOHN ESPINO, JOSHUA
ESPINO, JEREMY ESPINO, and MANUEL
ESPINO,

4:18CV3014

Plaintiffs,
ORDER
v.
JOHN AND JANE DOE(S) 1 THROUGH 10;
RICK SCHMIDT; RAELEE VAN WINKLE;
JERRY ESCH; MICHAEL DOREMUS;
KELLY SCARLETT; and ALLEN SEDLAK;
All Of Whom Are Named In Their Individual
Capacity,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
(Filing No. 15) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60. The plaintiffs seek
an order “altering, amending, and/or vacating” this Court’s April 9, 2018, Memorandum and
Order (Filing No. 13) dismissing the Second Amended Complaint (Filing No. 1-1) for failure to
state a claim.

The plaintiffs claim the Memorandum and Order was entered “without

consideration of the amendments made to the Plaintiffs’ complaint filed in the State District
Court,” particularly their allegations of ongoing racial profiling. According to the plaintiffs, the
Court’s dismissal of this case was improper because they “have stated a plausible claim, and
should be allowed to proceed.” The defendants oppose further review (Filing No. 17), arguing
“Plaintiffs have presented no argument that this Court has not already considered and analyzed.”
Whether to grant the plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is a matter
committed to the broad discretion of this Court. See, e.g., Harris v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs.,
Div. of Mental Retardation-Developmental Disabilities Servs., 771 F.2d 414, 417 n.3 (8th Cir.
1985). “Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407,
413 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th

Cir.), as amended, 835 F.2d 710 (7th Cir. 1987)). “Rule 59(e) motions cannot be used to
introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been
offered or raised prior to the entry of judgment.” United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist.,
440 F.3d 930, 934 (8th Cir. 2006).
Rule 60(a) authorizes the Court to correct mistakes or omissions in a judgment or order
before an appeal is filed. Rule 60(b) enables the Court to provide relief for certain specified
reasons, including, without limitation, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and “any other reason that
justifies relief.” “Relief under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy. It is not a substitute for
other legal remedies, and relief under this rule is to be granted only when exceptional
circumstances prevented a party from seeking redress through the usual channels.” Nucor Corp.
v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist., 999 F.2d 372, 374 (8th Cir. 1993). Rule 60(b) is “not a vehicle for
simple reargument on the merits.” Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 1999).
Having thoroughly reviewed the plaintiffs’ Motion and the parties’ submissions, the
Court finds the plaintiffs have failed to present adequate grounds to warrant reconsideration.
Their claim that the Court did not consider the allegations presented in the Second Amended
Complaint is completely without merit. The Court carefully considered and rejected all of the
plaintiffs’ arguments in its April 9, 2018, Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 13). As such, the
plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Filing No. 15) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day of June, 2018.

BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
United States District Judge

2