Martin v. UTMB et al
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 24 MOTION to Reinstate Lawsuit.(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(dwilkerson, 3)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
JIMMY D MARTIN,
TDCJ #01575966,
Plaintiff,
VS.
UTMB, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
November 21, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-0363
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jimmy D. Martin filed this civil rights complaint (Dkt. 1) under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 while he was an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional
Institutions Division (“TDCJ”). Martin proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. On
October 31, 2018, the Court dismissed Martin’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Dkt 21,
Dkt 22). Plaintiff has filed a motion for rehearing and to reinstate (Dkt. 24), which the
Court construes as a timely motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter
or amend this Court’s judgment.
Rule 59(e) serves the narrow purpose of allowing a party to bring errors of newly
discovered evidence to the Court’s attention. See In re Rodriguez, 695 F.3d 360, 371 (5th
Cir. 2012). A motion for reconsideration under 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. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir.
2004). However, a Rule 59(e) motion challenging a judgment entered on the pleadings is
1/3
informed by the standard applicable to motions for leave to amend brought under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). See Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863-64
(5th Cir. 2003).
Under Rule 15(a), leave should be freely given, but it may be denied
based on “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
opposing party by virtue of the allowance of the amendment, and futility of the
amendment.” Id. at 864 (internal citation, quotation marks, and alteration omitted).
Where the pleadings, viewed under the individual circumstances of the case,
“demonstrate that the plaintiff has pleaded his best case,” dismissal on the pleadings is
appropriate if the pleadings do not adequately state a cause of action.
Jacquez v.
Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986); see Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054
(5th Cir. 1998) (holding that a court may sua sponte dismiss for failure to state a claim
“as long as the procedure employed is fair”) (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted).
The Court’s previous order carefully considered Martin’s complaint and other
filings, which alleged that the defendants were liable for negligence or medical
malpractice because he received inadequate treatment for a skin condition. The Court
dismissed Martin’s complaint because, under the relevant legal authorities, he failed to
state a valid claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment. See Dkt. 21 (citing, inter alia,
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104
(1976); Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 770 (5th Cir. 2009); Gobert v. Caldwell, 463
2/3
F.3d 339, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2006); Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 239 F.3d 752,
756 (5th Cir. 2001)).
Martin’s motion under Rule 59(e) brings arguments that he made, or could have
made, before entry of judgment.
See Templet, 367 F.3d at 479 (a motion for
reconsideration is not the proper vehicle to make arguments that could have been raised
previously). To the extent his current motions could be construed as a request for leave to
amend his pleadings, the motion would be denied because he has failed to show diligence
and because his amendment would be futile. See Rosenzweig, 332 F.3d at 864. The
Court is satisfied, after careful review of Martin’s motions and all matters of record, that
he has pleaded his best case. See Jacquez, 801 F.2d at 793; Bazrowx, 136 F.3d at 1054.
Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing and to reinstate (Dkt. 24) is DENIED
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 21st day of November, 2018.
___________________________________
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?