Muhammad v. Independent School No 89 of Oklahoma County et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying 24 Motion for New Trial; denying 25 Motion to for Leave to Amend Complaint, as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 1/12/16. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARCIA MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff,
v.
MYLISSA HALL, in her
individual capacity,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-59-R

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59,
F.R.Civ.P. and/or for relief from the Judgment and Order pursuant to Rule 60(b). By this
motion, Plaintiff essentially seeks reconsideration of this Court’s Order of July 6, 2015 to
the extent the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim and
Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1985(d) conspiracy claim. In the motion, Plaintiff also asks for
leave to amend her Complaint. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is treated as a motion to
alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), F.R.Civ.P.
A rule 59(e) motion may be granted where it is shown that there has been an
intervening change in the law, new evidence previously unavailable, or the need to
correct a clear error or to prevent a manifest injustice. See Servants of Paraclete v. Does,
204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A motion to alter or amend is not appropriate to
reargue an issue previously addressed by the Court.

Id..

Rule 59(e) motions are

“addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. . . .” Bickford v. John E. Mitchell
Co., 595 F.2d 540, 543 (10th Cir. 1979). Rule 60(b) provides grounds for relief from a

final judgment, order, or proceeding under specific extraordinary circumstances such as
mistake, inadvertence, newly discovered evidence, or fraud.

F.R.Civ.P. 60(b); Bud

Brooks Trucking Co., Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Co., 909 F.2d 1437, 1440 (10th Cir.
1990). A motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) is also addressed to the sound discretion of
the trial court, Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2010), but may only be
granted in extraordinary circumstances. Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d at 1009.
Rule 60(b) does not permit a party to re-argue an issue by rehashing facts and arguments
already addressed or available, yet neglected, in the original proceeding. VanSkiver v.
United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991).
The Court has carefully reviewed its Order of July 6, 2015 [Doc. No. 18] in light
of Plaintiff’s argument and authorities and specifically finds that it committed no clear
error and that alteration of the Order and Judgment are not necessary to prevent manifest
injustice.

Furthermore, the Court finds the non-existence of any extraordinary

circumstance that would warrant relief under Rule 60(b).

Finally, upon review of

Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion, to the
extent it requests leave to amend, would not cure the deficiencies of Plaintiff’s claims but
would be futile.
In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for new trial, i.e., motion to
alter or amend or to vacate the Order and Judgment of July 6, 2015, as well as Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to amend her Complaint are DENIED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of January, 2016.

3