McCoy v. Ku Ku et al
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 26 MOTION to Alter Judgment (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(GeorgeCardenas, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
PRINCE McCOY,
TDCJ # 00852958,
Plaintiff,
VS.
PATRICIA KUKU, et al.
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
August 29, 2019
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-0275
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On July 19, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendants and
dismissed the civil rights claims brought by Plaintiff Prince McCoy. On August 1, 2019,
Plaintiff filed a timely motion to alter judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) (Dkt. 26). Having reviewed the plaintiff’s filings, the applicable law, and all
matters of record, the Court concludes that the motion should be denied for the reasons
that follow.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a litigant to file a motion to alter or
amend a judgment. A motion for reconsideration “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. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
Instead, Rule 59(e) serves the narrow purpose of allowing a party to bring errors or newly
discovered evidence to the Court’s attention. See In re Rodriguez, 695 F.3d 360, 371 (5th
Cir. 2012). Moreover, “an unexcused failure to present evidence available at the time of
1/3
summary judgment provides a valid basis for denying a subsequent motion for
reconsideration.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.
McCoy’s motion points to many of the same medical records he cited in his
previous briefing. As before, he argues that Kuku assaulted him by rubbing ammonia in
his eyes and directs the Court to his declaration, which the Court previously considered.
See Dkt. 24, at 3 (citing record). He also continues to press his argument that TDCJ
officials were untruthful when they stated that his blood sugar was low because he failed
to eat. Because these contentions rehash arguments that were or could have been made
before entry of judgment, and because they were addressed in the Court’s prior opinion,
they are insufficient to warrant relief under Rule 59(e). See Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.
McCoy also argues that the Court failed to address his allegation that Monse
conspired with Speers to deny him hypoglycemic snacks on May 19, 2016. McCoy’s
allegations of conspiracy were insufficient to state a non-frivolous claim for relief under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1 In any event, Monse moved for summary judgment on all
claims against her, and Plaintiff presented no competent summary judgment evidence in
support of a conspiracy claim. See Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.
Finally, although McCoy states that the Court erred because it failed to rule on his
“motion to compel” (Dkt. 26, at 1), no such motion appears on the Court’s docket.
1
See Dkt. 1, at 24, ¶ 12 (complaint alleged that, “Upon information and belief, plaintiff
asserts that the defendant Ms. Monse, had to have went into defendant Mr. Speer’s office and
maliciously and sadistically conspired with him, to cause harm to me, by discontinuing my hypo
snacks” because Speers “was in his office, and didn’t even know I was there in medical, nor
what for until Ms. Monse went and told him”).
2/3
Because Plaintiff presents no meritorious basis for relief under Rule 59(e), his
motion to alter judgment (Dkt. 26) is DENIED.
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 29th day of August, 2019.
___________________________________
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge
3/3
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?