Gulley v. Webb et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying 31 defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge R Leon Jordan on July 5, 2011. (AYB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
GREENEVILLE DIVISION
BRANDON GULLEY,
Plaintiff,

v.
MATT WEBB, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:10-CV-100

ORDER
This civil action is before the court for consideration of the “Motion for
Reconsideration and/or Clarification” filed by defendants [doc. 31]. Plaintiff has not filed
a response. Motions to reconsider are not specifically recognized by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Carbon Processing & Reclamation, LLC v. Valero Mktg. & Supply Co.,
No. 09-2127-STA, 2010 WL 3925261, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 29, 2010) (citing Westerfield
v. United States, No. 08-4458, 2010 WL 653535, at *5 (6th Cir. Feb. 24, 2010)). “District
courts have authority both under common law and Rule 54(b) to reconsider interlocutory
orders and to reopen any part of a case before entry of final judgment.” Rodriguez v. Tenn.
Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App’x 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004). “Traditionally,
courts will find justification for reconsidering interlocutory orders when there is (1) an
intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct
a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. In the court’s opinion, none of these reasons
exist here.

Defendants seek reconsideration of the court’s order [doc. 29] that clarified
two legal issues raised by defendants in the agreed pretrial order, application of the Heck v.
Humphry doctrine and qualified immunity.
With regard to the application of the Heck doctrine, the court has already ruled
on the application of that legal issue in the memorandum opinion denying defendants’
motion for summary judgment [doc. 24]. The court finds no reconsideration or clarification
is necessary. The ruling stands as stated by the court in its opinion and clarification order
[doc. 29]. Defendants argue that if the jury agrees with their version of the facts, then Heck
would bar plaintiff’s claim. They are incorrect. If the jury accepts defendants’ version of
the facts, the defendants rather than plaintiff would prevail at trial.
Defendants also ask for reconsideration of the court’s ruling regarding the legal
issue of qualified immunity at trial [doc. 29]. Defendants did not file a motion for summary
judgment prior to trial seeking qualified immunity. However, as noted in the clarification
order, this is not a case in which defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity.
Defendants argue that if the jury agrees with defendants’ version of what occurred, then they
would be entitled to qualified immunity. Again, their argument is misplaced. If the jury
agrees with the defendants as to what occurred, they would prevail over plaintiff at trial.
The court concludes that no basis exists to alter its rulings that the Heck
doctrine and qualified immunity are legal issues that have no application at the trial of this
case. Accordingly, defendants’ motion [doc. 31] is hereby DENIED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER:

s/ Leon Jordan
United States District Judge

3