Conrad v. Krc et al
Filing
92
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION and ORDER DENYING 87 MOTION for New Trial filed by Derrick Conrad. Signed by Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell on 10/5/2016. (gsg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
DERRICK CONRAD
v.
WAYNE KRC, et al.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-CV-77
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial (ECF 87). Having considered the
motion and response, the Court DENIES the motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Derrick Conrad, proceeding pro se, filed this case on January 29, 2015 seeking
relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order on
June 17, 2016 granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the
complaint with prejudice. The Court entered a Final Judgment on the same date.
On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for New Trial (ECF 87). In his motion,
Plaintiff states that he is seeking relief pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). Plaintiff alleges that he
was subjected to false imprisonment during an arrest and that there was a lack of probable cause
for his arrest. Without providing any facts, Plaintiff alleges that fraud was committed in this
proceeding.
He additionally seeks to add claims against the undersigned and counsel for
Defendants.
1
Defendants filed a response on June 30, 2016. Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s motion
fails to establish an intervening change in controlling law, to clearly establish or identify a
manifest error of law or fact, or raise arguments that could not have been offered or raised prior
to the entry of judgment. Plaintiff additionally does not present any new evidence.
ANALYSIS
Although Plaintiff’s motion is titled as a motion for new trial, the Court did not conduct a
trial in this case. A motion for new trial is therefore inappropriate. See United States v. $16,540
in U.S. Currency, 273 F.3d 1094 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). Plaintiff states, however, that he is
seeking relief pursuant to Rule 59(e). Plaintiff’s motion should be construed as a motion for
reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e). Id. (citing Patin v. Allied Signal, Inc., 77 F.3d 782, 785
n. 1 (5th Cir. 1996)).
A motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) is “not the proper vehicle for
rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the
entry of judgment.” Templet v. HydoChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (citing Simon v. United
States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)). Instead, a Rule 59(e) motion “serve[s] the narrow
purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Id. (quoting Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir.
1989)).
Altering, amending, or reconsidering a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) is an
extraordinary remedy that is used sparingly. Id. Plaintiff’s motion inappropriately seeks to
reassert the legal theories and arguments previously raised in his pleadings and in his response to
the motion for summary judgment.
He does not show a manifest error of law or fact.
Additionally, he does not present any newly discovered evidence. Rather, Plaintiff’s motion
2
advances baseless allegations of fraud and misconduct by Defendants, counsel and the
undersigned. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial (ECF 87) is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 5th day of October, 2016.
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?