Barton v. Heineman et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Barton's "Motion to Amend Judgment" (FilingNo. 65 ) is denied. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy e-mailed to pro se party) (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BERNARD BARTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVE HEINEMAN, JON BRUNING,
NEBRASKA STATE PATROL, BRYAN
TUMA, RYAN HAYES, JIM PARISH,
and MARK STOKEY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 7:11CV5000

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Bernard Barton’s (“Barton”) “Motion to
Amend Judgment,” which the court liberally construes as a motion to alter or amend a
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Rule 59(e) permits a motion
to alter or amend a judgment if filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.
District courts have broad discretion in determining whether to grant a Rule 59(e) motion.
Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284,
1286 (8th Cir. 1998). A motion to alter or amend serves “the limited function of correcting
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” United States v.
Metro St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006).
Barton’s Rule 59(e) motion was timely filed in response to the court’s March 13,
2013, Memorandum and Order, which granted Defendant Mark Stokey’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. Barton argues in his motion that the court failed to address his
argument that Defendant Mark Stokey placed him under “false arrest.” (Filing No. 65.)
Barton did not raise a “false arrest” argument in any coherent way against Defendant Mark
Stokey in his Second Amended Complaint. (See Filing No. 36; see also Filing No. 63, n.2

(“Barton’s peculiar writing style makes his allegations very difficult to decipher. . . . The
court previously warned Barton to ‘use plain language’ in discussing his claims.”)
Accordingly, the court did not address such an argument, and no manifest error of law or
fact need be corrected.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Barton’s “Motion to Amend Judgment” (Filing
No. 65) is denied.
DATED this 17th day of April, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or
guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites.
Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites.
The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink.
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does
not affect the opinion of the court.
2