Mohammed v. Beaver et al
ORDER denying Pltf's 78 Motion for Reconsideration of 76 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Trevor Mohammed. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 9/06/2021. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL CASE NO. 5:18-cv-00165-MR
KENNETH BEAVER, et al.,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider
The incarcerated Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 addressing various incidents that allegedly occurred at
the Alexander Correctional Institution. The Amended Complaint passed
initial review on claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs,
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and retaliation.
moved for partial summary judgment and Defendants moved for summary
judgment. [Docs. 62, 67]. The Court informed the Plaintiff of his right to
respond pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), and
he responded to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. 73].
After conducting a lengthy analysis, the Court granted the Defendants’
Case 5:18-cv-00165-MR Document 79 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 4
Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on March 25, 2021. [Doc. 76].
On April 9, 2021,1 Plaintiff filed the instant Motion asking the Court to
reconsider the Order granting summary judgment, and to consider two
“Motions” that, he claims, the Court failed to consider. [Doc. 26].
The Plaintiff’s Motion asking the Court to reconsider its Order on
summary judgment is construed as seeking relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Rule 59(e) must be filed within 28
days of a judgment and may only be granted in three situations: “(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
prevent manifest injustice.”
Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto
Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Rule 59(e) motions may not be used to make arguments that
could have been made before the judgment was entered.” Hill v. Braxton,
277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002).
The Plaintiff timely filed his motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), but he has
failed to make any argument that he could not have raised previously and he
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing the prisoner mailbox rule);
Lewis v. Richmond City Police Dep’t, 947 F.2d 733 (4th Cir. 1991) (applying prisoner
mailbox rule to § 1983 case).
Case 5:18-cv-00165-MR Document 79 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 4
has not identified any grounds warranting relief. The Plaintiff reiterates his §
1983 arguments, notes his disagreement with the Court’s characterization of
the forecast of evidence, and argues that the Defendants’ evidence should
be rejected. In short, he disagrees with the Court’s conclusion that he failed
to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact at trial. No
Rule 59(e) relief is warranted on this basis.
The two “Motions” to which the Plaintiff refers appear to be the Motion
for Clarification [Doc. 11], and the “Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to the
Defendants’ Filing of Amended Declarations” [Doc. 75]. First, the Plaintiff’s
suggestion that the Court failed to rule on the Motion for Clarification is
incorrect. The Court construed the Motion for Clarification as a Motion to
Amend and granted the Plaintiff an opportunity to file an Amended
Complaint, which he did.
[Docs. 13, 15].
The Plaintiff’s Motion was
considered and an appropriate ruling was entered; he has failed to
demonstrate that any error occurred.
Second, the Plaintiff’s suggestion that the Court should have ruled on
his Response in Opposition is misguided in that it was not a Motion that
required a ruling. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) (“A request for a court
order must be made by motion.”).
The Court considered Plaintiff’s
arguments but found his objections to be meritless and thus considered
Case 5:18-cv-00165-MR Document 79 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 4
Defendants’ Amended Declarations in its summary judgment analysis. That
the Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s consideration of the Amended
Declarations fails to demonstrate that any error occurred.
In sum, the Plaintiff has not identified an intervening change of law,
new evidence that was not previously available, or a clear error of law to
prevent a manifest injustice, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule
59(e) relief is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider
[Doc. 78] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 6, 2021
Case 5:18-cv-00165-MR Document 79 Filed 09/07/21 Page 4 of 4
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?