Wynn et al v. Perry et al
Filing
47
ORDER denying 38 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 39 Motion for Leave to File; granting 40 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend ; denying 46 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 2/21/17. (clc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:14-cv-00625-FDW
STACEY WYNN;
ORLANDO HARSHAW;
SEAN L. SMITH;
BENJAMIN WHITE;
TAVIEOLIS HUNT,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
LAWRENCE PARSONS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the
order granting the motion to sever filed by Defendants, which the Court will construe as a
motion for relief pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 38).
Regarding motions to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), the Fourth Circuit has
explained that “[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. (internal citation omitted). Indeed, the circumstances under which a Rule 59(e)
motion may be granted are so limited that “[c]ommentators observe ‘because of the narrow
1
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, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)).
Plaintiffs have not shown the existence of the limited circumstances under which a Rule
59(e) motion may be granted. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have 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 Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file amended complaints will be granted. (Doc. No. 39).
Plaintiffs shall have 20-days from entry of this Order to file individual § 1983 complaints in
accordance with the order granting Defendants’ motion to sever. (Doc. No. 37).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Doc. No. 38).
2. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file amended complaints is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 39).
3. Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of time to file amended complaints is GRANTED.
(Doc. No. 40).
4. Plaintiffs’ motion for hearing is DENIED. (Doc. No. 46).
SO ORDERED.
Signed: February 21, 2017
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?