Mehdipour v. Sweeney et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying 24 Plaintiff's Motion to Alter and/or Amend Judgment (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 7/18/2017. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ALI MEHDIPOUR,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEITH SWEENEY, Oklahoma City
Police Officer, in his individual capacity,
J. BEFEBVRE, Oklahoma City
Police Officer, in his individual capacity,
R. HOLT, Oklahoma City Police
Lieutenant, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-411-M

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter and/or Amend Judgment, filed February 8,
2017. On February 23, 2017, defendant Keith Sweeney (“Sweeney”) responded. No reply was
filed. Based on the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
Plaintiff moves this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) 1, to alter or
amend its January 19, 2017 Order granting Sweeney’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that
plaintiff’s claim for malicious prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations. However, since
the Court did not enter a final judgment in this matter, the Court finds that plaintiff’s motion is
actually seeking relief under Rule 60(b) 2 and should be analyzed as a motion to reconsider.

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 pertains to a New Trial; Altering or Amending
Judgment. Rule 59(e) provides that “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later
than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) provides:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . .
any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).

“Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling
law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v. John Does I-XVI, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
A motion to reconsider is appropriate “where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s
position, or the controlling law” but is not appropriate “to revisit issues already addressed or
advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Id.
Plaintiff specifically asserts that the Court’s ruling was a manifest error, as the statute of
limitations for his malicious prosecution claim did not begin to run until April 25, 2014, when the
state court judge memorialized in writing his dismissal of the state charges and recalled the warrant
against plaintiff. 3 Sweeney contends that even if plaintiff was not put on notice that the time for
his malicious prosecution claim had begun to run on March 19, 2014, when the state court judge
orally dismissed the counts against plaintiff and the case was closed, he was certainly put on notice
on April 3, 2014, when the state court judge issued an order memorializing his ruling in writing
sustaining plaintiff’s motions to suppress, quash, and dismiss the state court action.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that plaintiff has not
presented any new grounds warranting reconsideration of the Court’s January 19, 2017 Order.
Specifically, in its Order, the Court found that the time for plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim
began to run on March 19, 2014, when the state court judge sustained plaintiff’s motions to
suppress, quash, and dismiss, as at that point the state court had dismissed the state court action

3

Plaintiff also asserts that instead of dismissal, this Court should have either granted
plaintiff leave to amend his complaint or dismissed this action without prejudice. The Court
acknowledges plaintiff’s assertions and advises plaintiff that in his response brief to Sweeney’s
motion to dismiss, plaintiff did not seek leave to amend his complaint, and further, the Court’s
Order did not specifically dismiss this action with prejudice, and if plaintiff’s counsel was unsure
about the disposition of this matter, an inquiry to the Court would have informed plaintiff’s counsel
of the correct disposition.
2

against plaintiff and closed the case. The Court finds that the state court’s action on March 19,
2014, unambiguously put plaintiff on notice that the time for his malicious prosecution claim had
started running. Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiff’s motion to reconsider should be denied.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter
and/or Amend Judgment [docket no. 24].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of July, 2017.

3