Hamlin v. Penland et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 14 Motion to Amend Complaint; denying 14 Motion for Reconsideration re Order Dismissing Case and Clerk's Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 11/24/14. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(khm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:14-cv-242-FDW
HARLEY HAMLIN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MARENDA PENLAND, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint,
Motion for Reconsideration re Order Dismissing Case and Clerk’s Judgment, (Doc. No. 14).
Pro se Plaintiff Harley Hamlin is a North Carolina state court inmate, currently
incarcerated at Lanesboro Correctional Institution in Polkton, North Carolina. Plaintiff filed this
action on September 15, 2014, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming the following persons as
Defendants, all alleged to be employees of the Transylvania County Jail at all relevant times: (1)
Miranda Penland, Officer; (2) Eddie Lance, Captain; (3) Kris McCall, Lieutenant; and (4) Alesha
Cantrell, Officer. Plaintiff alleged in the Complaint that Defendant Cantrell sexually assaulted
him while he was a pre-trial detainee at the jail, and the other Defendants failed to protect him.
On October 31, 2014, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against all of the Defendants based
on failure to state a claim. As to Defendant Cantrell, the Court dismissed without prejudice
Plaintiff’s state law claim against her for sexual assault.
On November 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed the pending motion, which is in the nature of a
motion to alter or amend under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. With regard

1

to motions to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit has stated:
A district court has the discretion to grant a Rule 59(e) motion only in very
narrow circumstances: “(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear
error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.”
Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Collison v. Int’l Chem. Workers
Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994)). Furthermore, “Rule 59(e) motions may not be used to
make arguments that could have been made before the judgment was entered.” Id. Indeed, the
circumstances under which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted are so limited that
“[c]ommentators observe ‘because of the narrow purposes for which they are intended, Rule
59(e) motions typically are denied.’” Woodrum v. Thomas Mem’l Hosp. Found., Inc., 186
F.R.D. 350, 351 (S.D. W. Va. 1999) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary
Kay Kane, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)).
Plaintiff has not shown the existence of the limited circumstances under which a Rule
59(e) motion may be granted. That is, Plaintiff’s motion does not present evidence that was
unavailable when he filed his Complaint, nor does his motion stem from an intervening change
in the applicable law. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not shown that a clear error of law has been
made, or that failure to grant the motion would result in manifest injustice to him. See Hill, 277
F.3d at 708. In sum, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

2

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint, Motion
for Reconsideration re Order Dismissing Case and Clerk’s Judgment, (Doc. No. 14), is
DENIED.
Signed: November 24, 2014

3