Sefiane v. Beaumont Police Department et al
Filing
81
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's 80 motions for reconsideration and post-judgment motions are untimely and without merit. Accordingly, the motions should be denied. It is therefore, ORDERED that plaintiff's motions are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Thad Heartfield on 10/1/19. (ljw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
SAMAD SEFIANE
§
VS.
§
ERIN SMITH
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18cv24
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Samad Sefiane, an inmate formerly at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility,
proceeding pro se, brought the above-styled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
Magistrate Judge recommended the action be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. After receiving no objections from the parties, the
Report of the Magistrate Judge was adopted, and the action was dismissed on February 22, 2018.
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiff’s
appeal was dismissed on November 27, 2018.
On April 17, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for relief required by law, equity and justice
(docket entry no. 74). Additionally, plaintiff has filed a motion to recruit for counsel (docket
entry no. 75), a motion for new trial (docket entry no. 76), and a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint (docket entry no. 78). This memorandum opinion and order considers such
motions.
ANALYSIS
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:
(A)
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
(B)
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.
Rule 60(b), FED. R. CIV. P., provides in pertinent part:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time
to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has
been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has
been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
As plaintiff’s motions were not filed within twenty-eight days of the judgment, the
motions are untimely under Rule 59 and should be denied. Further, even affording the motions
consideration under the more liberal Rule 60(b), the court is of the opinion that the motions fail
to set forth a meritorious ground warranting relief. For the reasons set forth above in the Report
and the Memorandum Opinion previously entered in this action, plaintiff’s claims should be
dismissed as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff’s post-judgment motions are untimely and without merit. Therefore, plaintiff’s
motions should be denied.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration and post-judgment
motions are untimely and without merit. Accordingly, the motions should be denied. It is
therefore,
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions are DENIED.
SIGNED this the 1 day of October, 2019.
____________________________
Thad Heartfield
United States District Judge
3
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?