Hamby et al v. Johnson et al

Filing 35

ORDER: Consequently, the court's prior decision stands. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend 34 is DENIED. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 5/8/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
WILLIAM DAVIDSON HAMBY, JR.,
et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
VICTOR SAMUEL JOHNSON III, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 3:13-cv-00096
Judge Campbell

ORDER
Plaintiff Hamby, Jr. has filed a pro se “Motion in Opposition to Court Dismissal Without
Prejudice to Case/Opposition to Injunction Denial” (Docket No. 34) of the court’s order and
memorandum entered on April 10, 2013 (Docket Nos. 20 and 21), dismissing the plaintiff’s claims
against Victor Samuel Johnson, III, and unnamed assistant district attorneys for failure to state
claims upon which relief can be granted and denying the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief
(Docket No. 14).1 As to the plaintiff’s claims pertaining to his state court charges, detentions,
convictions and/or sentences, the court dismissed those claims without prejudice. (Docket Nos. 20
and 21).
The court construes the instant motion as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule
59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. Motions to alter or amend judgment may be granted if there is a clear error
of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or to prevent manifest
injustice. GenCorp, Inc. v. American Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir.1999).
1

In the same order (Docket No. 21), the court granted plaintiffs Hamby, Jr., Braden, and Shannon’s applications
to proceed as paupers and dismissed the claims brought by plaintiffs Scruggs, Morris, Merritt, Rippy, and Rivera for
failure to comply with the orders of the court, and for want of prosecution. (Id.)

1

The court has considered the plaintiff’s arguments (Docket No. 34) and reviewed all relevant
material in the record. Although the plaintiff rejects the court’s earlier ruling, the plaintiff does not
allege that there is newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in controlling law that would
require the court to revisit its analysis under different facts or law. The plaintiff simply disagrees
with the court’s review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Consequently, the

court’s prior decision stands. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend (Docket No. 34)
is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.

_____________________________________
Todd J. Campbell
United States District Judge

2