Fraction v. Haney et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff's "Second request for Hearing" (Filing No. 8 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MAUREEN HANEY, and LEGAL AID
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Second request for Hearing,”
which the court construes as a Motion to Alter or Amend pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Filing No. 8.)
A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant or deny
a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). United States v.
Metropolitan 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 fact or
to present newly discovered evidence.” Id. (quoting Innovative Home Health Care
v. P.T.-O.T. Assoc. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998)). “Such
motions cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or
raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of
In his motion, Plaintiff continues to argue the merits of his case, but the
court dismissed this matter without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
(See Filing No. 6.) The court cannot address the merits of Plaintiff’s case if it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over it. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s “Second request for
Hearing” (Filing No. 8) is denied.
Dated this 3rd day of October, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior 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?