Allen v. Taylor et al
Filing
26
ORDER denying 25 MOTION for Reconsideration re 24 Clerk's Judgment, 23 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Johnnie D. Allen. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 9/12/2018. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(kby)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:17-cv-228-FDW
JOHNNIE D. ALLEN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FNU TAYLOR, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Notice of Appeal/Motion for
Reconsideration,” which this Court construes as a motion to alter or amend under Rule 59(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 25).
On August 18, 2017, Plaintiff, a North Carolina inmate, filed the underlying lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging claims of violations of his First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights, as well as various state law claims against various defendants. In an Order
dated July 27, 2018, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims on initial review for failure to state a
claim. (Doc. No. 23). On September 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed the pending motion.
With regard 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
1
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.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Notice of Appeal/Motion for
Reconsideration,” (Doc. No. 25), is DENIED.
Signed: September 12, 2018
2
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?