Rankins v. Hargrave et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 9 Pltf's Motion for Reconsideration re 6 Order Dismissing Case. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 12/11/14. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(ejb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:14-cv-194-FDW
ANTHONY RUDOLPH RANKINS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
WENDALL HARGRAVE,
)
GEORGE SOLOMON,
)
DAVID HATLEY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration,
(Doc. No. 9).
Pro se Plaintiff Anthony Rudolph Rankins is a North Carolina state court inmate,
currently incarcerated at Lanesboro Correctional Institution in Polkton, North Carolina. Plaintiff
filed this action on April 21, 2014, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his Complaint, Plaintiff
named as Defendants Wendall Hargrave, identified as the Administrator of Lanesboro; George
Solomon, identified as Director of Prisons for the State of North Carolina; and David Hatley,
identified as Unit Manager of the Union Unit at Lanesboro. (Doc. No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff
purported to bring a claim of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment based
on his allegation that he and other inmates at Lanesboro were subjected to inhumane conditions
during an emergency lockdown in November and December of 2013. In an order May 13, 2014,
on initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this Court dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims for failure
to state a claim. (Doc. No. 6).
1

On May 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed the pending motion for reconsideration, which is in the
nature of motion to alter or amend the prior judgment of the Court. 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
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 for reconsideration.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc.
No. 9), is DENIED.
2

Signed: December 11, 2014

3