Cunningham v. City of Balch Springs et al

Filing 41

Memorandum Opinion and Order grants in part and denies in part 35 Motion for New Trial filed by Michael Cunningham. Specifically, the court grants the motion with regard to Plaintiffs § 1983 claims against Officers Young and Haber, and denies the motion in all other respects.Discovery due by 3/21/2016. Motions due by 5/2/2016. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 1/20/2016) (mem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MICHAEL CUNNINGHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BALCH SPRINGS, JAMES
YOUNG, JONATHAN HABER,
WILLIAM MORRIS a/k/a Ed Morris,
and EDWARD ORTEGA,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-59-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial (Doc. 35), filed July 17, 2015, which the
court construes as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court’s June 19, 2015 memorandum opinion and order (Doc.
33) in which the court granted Defendant City of Balch Springs’ 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;
granted the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Young, Haber, and Morris; and
remanded Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim against Defendant Edward Ortega to the 14th Judicial
District Court, Dallas County, Texas. After considering Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants’ response,
the record, and applicable law, the court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s Motion for
New Trial.
I.

Applicable Legal Standard
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), “[a] motion to amend a judgment must

be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Plaintiff filed his
Motion for New Trial 28 days after the court’s June 19, 2015 memorandum opinion and order.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), therefore, applies. Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool
Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990) (“If [a] motion is [filed] within ten days of the
rendition of judgment, the motion falls under Rule 59(e); if it is [filed] after that time, it falls under
Rule 60(b).”) (footnote omitted),1 abrogated on other grounds by Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d
1069, 1075 n.14 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
“Motions for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment must clearly establish either a
manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence.” Simon v. United States,
891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Such motions may not be used to relitigate
issues that were resolved to the movant’s dissatisfaction. Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp.,
885 F.2d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1989). A Rule 59 motion may not be used to relitigate old matters, raise
arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to entry of judgment. See
generally 11 C. WRIGHT, A. MILLER & M. KANE § 2810.1 at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995); see also
Simon, 891 F.2d at 1159. When considering a Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider, a court may not
grant such a motion unless the movant establishes: “(1) the facts discovered are of such a nature that
they would probably change the outcome; (2) the alleged facts are actually newly discovered and
could not have been discovered earlier by proper diligence; and (3) the facts are not merely
cumulative or impeaching.” Infusion Resources, Inc. v. Minimed, Inc., 351 F.3d 688, 696-97 (5th
Cir. 2003). District courts have “considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a
motion to alter a judgment.” Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 921 (5th Cir. 1995). In exercising this
discretion, a district court must “strike the proper balance between the need for finality and the need
to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts.” Id. With this balance in mind, the Fifth Circuit

1

In 2009, Rule 59(e) was amended, and the amendment changed the period of time to file a motion from 10
days to 28 days; however, this amendment does not affect the substantive holding of Lavespere.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 2

has observed that Rule 59(e) “favor[s] the denial of motions to alter or amend a judgment.”
Southern Constructors Group, Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993).
II.

Analysis
A.

The Parties’ Arguments

Plaintiff contends that the court erred in granting the motions to dismiss filed by the City of
Balch Springs, James Young, Jonathan Haber, and William Morris. Plaintiff asserts that the
allegations in his Amended Complaint are sufficient to show that his arrest was improper, and that
the warrant obtained for his arrest was improperly secured. In this regard, Plaintiff contends:
With all of the allegations contained in [his] Amended Complaint regarding
the assault, the report of the assault, the interrogation of Plaintiff, the evidence
supporting Plaintiff’s contentions and the arrest of Plaintiff for making a false report,
the Court erred in its analysis of the facts by failing to recognize that the arrest and
detention of [Plaintiff] resulted from police officers with the City of Balch Springs
Police Department improperly obtaining an arrest warrant for [his] arrest in violation
of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Pl.’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. for New Trial.
Defendants respond that Plaintiff’s motion is “little more than a regurgitation of the ‘facts’
and allegations in his Amended Complaint” that the court determined were insufficient in ruling on
their motions to dismiss. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s motion does not address or overcome
any of the various pleading deficiencies previously identified by the court. Defendants, therefore,
contend that Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial should be denied.
B.

Discussion

In its June 19, 2015 memorandum opinion and order, the court explained the reasons why
Plaintiff’s pleadings in his Amended Complaint were deficient. Mem. Op. & Order (Doc. 33). In
the interest of brevity, the court incorporates by reference its June 19, 2015 memorandum opinion
and order as if herein fully set forth verbatim. Having carefully considered the arguments made in
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 3

Plaintiff’s motion and Defendants’ response, and under applicable law, the court concludes that
Plaintiff’s motion should be denied insofar as Plaintiff seeks to alter or amend the court’s judgment
dismissing his claims against the City of Balch Springs and William Morris (“Morris”), a
supervisory official, and granted insofar as he seeks to alter or amend the court’s judgment
dismissing his § 1983 claims against Officers Young and Haber.2
1.

Defendants City of Balch Springs and Morris

As Defendants correctly argue, Plaintiff’s motion does not address the numerous pleading
deficiencies identified by court with regard to the allegations in the First Amended Complaint
pertaining to the City of Balch Springs and Morris. Further, Plaintiff fails to explain why the
allegations in his Amended Complaint are sufficient to overcome the deficiencies noted by the court.
Additionally, Plaintiff does not contend that the court misapplied the law to the facts of this case as
alleged by him. Plaintiff has, therefore, failed to meet his burden of clearly establishing a manifest
error of law or fact as required for relief under Rule 59 with regard to the court’s decision to dismiss
his claims against the City of Balch Springs and Morris. See Simon, 891 F.2d at 1159. With regard
to these Defendants, Plaintiff’s motion is an improper attempt to relitigate matters that were resolved
to his dissatisfaction. See Forsythe, 885 F.2d at 289. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff’s
motion with regard to the City of Balch Springs and Morris.

2
On November 9, 2015, the court directed the parties to file supplemental briefing on the application, if any,
of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Cole v. Carson, 802 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2015), on Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial. The
court has considered the briefing and concluded that the Cole opinion has no application with respect to the resolution
of Plaintiff’s pending motion.

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 4

2.

Officers Haber and Young

With regard to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Officers Haber and Young, however, the
court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion should be granted. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against
Defendants Haber and Young is premised on their alleged roles in procuring the warrant with false
information that led to his arrest, which Plaintiff contends was without probable cause in violation
of the Fourth Amendment. With regard to Young’s and Haber’s role in procurement of the arrest
warrant, Plaintiff alleges that “upon further investigation and discovery, evidence will show that
Young and/or Haber and/or other police officers with the City of Balch Springs Police Department
knowingly filed a false affidavit to secure an arrest warrant for [Plaintiff’s] arrest when the affiant(s)
1) knew it was false, or 2) would have known it was false had the affiant not recklessly disregarded
the truth.” Pl.’s Am. Compl. ¶ 29. Plaintiff further alleges that even though the One Stop video
corroborates his assault claim, “somehow, the Balch Springs police secured an arrest warrant to have
[Plaintiff] arrested for making a false report” and “[p]resumably the warrant was obtained by sworn
statements made by Balch Springs police officers in an affidavit, claiming that [Plaintiff] made a
false report to the police regarding the assault by Ortega.” Id. ¶¶ 30-31. Plaintiff also alleges that,
“upon further investigation and discovery the evidence will show that the warrant for arrest was
obtained by Young and/or Haber and/or other City of Balch Springs police officers after they
knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, presented to a Judge an
affidavit that contained misleading and/or incorrect assertions of fact.” Id. ¶ 33.
Upon reconsideration, the court concludes that at the motion-to-dismiss stage of these
proceedings, and upon further review of the allegations in the First Amended Complaint pertaining
to Officers Haber and Young, Plaintiff’s pleadings assert facts which, if true, would overcome the
defense of qualified immunity. Further, under these circumstances, the district court may “allow
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 5

discovery necessary to clarify those facts upon which the immunity defense turns.” Wicks v.
Mississippi State Employment Servs., 41 F.3d 991, 995 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Lion Boulos v.
Wilson, 834 F.2d 504, 507 (5th Cir,. 1987). The court will reassess whether these officers are
entitled to qualified immunity after limited discovery necessary to clarify the facts relevant to this
inquiry. Such discovery shall be “narrowly tailored to uncover only those facts needed to rule on
the immunity claims[.]” Lion Boulos, 834 F.2d at 507.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons herein stated, the court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s Motion

for New Trial (Doc. 35). Specifically, the court grants the motion with regard to Plaintiff’s § 1983
claims against Officers Young and Haber, and denies the motion in all other respects. Accordingly,
the court vacates those parts of its Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Judgment, both dated June
19, 2015, holding that Defendants Haber and Young were entitled to qualified immunity, dismissing
them as defendants from this action, and rendering judgment in their favor.
It is hereby ordered that discovery may proceed with regard to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims
against Officers Haber and Young, but the discovery must be narrowly tailored to clarify those facts
upon which the qualified immunity defense turns and must be reasonably calculated to assist the
court in determining whether Officers Haber and Young are entitled to qualified immunity at this
stage of the litigation. All such discovery shall be completed by March 21, 2016. Any motion for
dismissal or summary judgment based on qualified immunity shall be filed by May 2, 2016.

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 6

It is so ordered this 20th day of January, 2016.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 7