Shelton v. Leon et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is ordered that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is granted to the extent plaintiff requests the dismissal be without prejudice. Plaintiff's objections are overruled and the motion for reconsideration is denied in all other respects. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 2/24/12. (mrp, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNIT COUNSELOR LEON, et al.,
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-344
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Monty Shelton, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Complex in
Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brought this lawsuit against Unit Counselor Leon, Code
Treatment Specialist Mattis, Code Treatment Specialist Powdrill, and Unit Manager Comstock.
A memorandum order and final judgment were entered, granting the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment and dismissing the lawsuit. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration.
The motion was granted to allow consideration of plaintiff’s objections to the report of the
magistrate judge which were received one day after the final judgment was entered. After
consideration of plaintiff’s objections, the court now withdraws its prior order (#52) and
substitutes the following.
FED. R. CIV. P. 59 provides in pertinent part the following:
(a)(1) Grounds for New Trial. The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all
or some of the issues - and to any party - as follows:
after a jury trial, for any of reason for which a new trial has heretofore been
granted in an action at law in federal court; or
after a nonjury trial, for any reason for which a rehearing has heretofore
been granted in a suit in equity in federal court.
(2) Further Action After a Nonjury Trial. After a nonjury trial, the court may, on
motion for a new trial, open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional
testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones, and
direct the entry of a new judgment.
(b) Time to File a Motion for a New Trial. A motion for a new trial must be
filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.
(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment
must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.
Plaintiff’s motion was filed within 28 days of entry of the judgment. Accordingly,
plaintiff’s motion is liberally construed as a motion pursuant to Rule 59.
A de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law has
been conducted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes
plaintiff's objections should be overruled. For the reasons stated in the relevant report by the
magistrate judge, plaintiff's claims should be dismissed.
Administrative remedies must be exhausted regardless of the type of relief sought in the
lawsuit and regardless of whether the particular type of relief sought is available through the
applicable grievance process. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 740-41 (2001). The exhaustion
requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general
circumstances or particular episodes. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). The proper
exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84, 126
S.Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006). Proper exhaustion does not include "untimely or otherwise procedurally
defective administrative grievance[s] or appeal[s]." Id. at 83. The relevant statutory provision
"plainly requires that administrative remedies be exhausted before the filing of a ... suit, rather
than while the action is pending." Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887, 890 (5th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff asserts that genuine issues of material fact exist precluding summary judgment.
Plaintiff, however, has failed to provide competent summary judgment evidence that he exhausted
the available administrative remedies. In his original complaint, submitted under the penalty of
perjury, plaintiff concedes he did not exhaust administrative remedies, and explains he did not
exhaust because “[t]his is a Bivens claim.” Complaints and other submissions to the court that are
not made under the penalty of perjury are not considered competent summary-judgment evidence.
DirectTV, Inc. v. Budden, 420 F.3d 521, 530 (5th Cir. 2005); Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline,
845 F.2d 1300, 1306 (5th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
should be granted.
Plaintiff requests that the court’s dismissal of this action be without prejudice if his motion
for reconsideration is denied. After due consideration, the court is of the opinion plaintiff’s
request should be granted.
After careful consideration of plaintiff's motion, the court is of the opinion that plaintiff's
objections fail to set forth a meritorious ground warranting relief from the judgment. It is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED to the extent plaintiff
requests the dismissal be without prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED and the motion for
reconsideration is DENIED in all other respects. An amended final judgment will be entered in
accordance with this Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.
SIGNED at opinion.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 24th day of February, 2012.
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?