Crabb et al v. Federal Highway Administration et al

Filing 154

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered DENYING 152 MOTION for Reconsideration of 150 Memorandum and Opinion. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
WILLIAM A. WARE,
Plaintiff,
VS.
UNITED STATES FEDERAL HIGHWAY,
ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

May 19, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-0848

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The plaintiff, William Ware, moved for reconsideration of the court’s March 30, 2016
Memorandum and Opinion granting the defendants summary judgment. (Docket Entry No. 152).
The defendants responded. (Docket Entry No. 153).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for
reconsideration. See St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Fair Grounds Corp., 123 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir.
1997) (“[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a general motion for
reconsideration.”). A court retains the power to revise an interlocutory order before entering
judgment adjudicating the parties’ claims, rights, and liabilities. FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). A motion
that asks the court to change an order or judgment is generally considered a motion to alter or amend
under Rule 59(e). T-M Vacuum Products, Inc. v. TAISC, Inc., No. 07-cv-4108, 2008 WL 2785636,
at *2 (S.D. Tex. July 16, 2008). A Rule 59(e) motion “calls into question the correctness of a
judgment.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478–79 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing In re
Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)). A Rule 59(e) motion “‘must clearly
establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence’ and
1

‘cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment
issued.’” Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863–64 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Simon v.
United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)). Changing an order or judgment under Rule
59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy” that courts should use sparingly. Templet, 367 F.3d at 479; see
also 11 WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2810.1 at 124 (2d ed. 1995). The
Rule 59(e) standard “favors denial of motions to alter or amend a judgment.” S. Constructors Grp.,
Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993). A motion to reconsider may not be used
to relitigate matters or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised before the
entry of the judgment or order. 11 WRIGHT & MILLER § 2810.1 at 127–28 (footnotes omitted).
In his motion for reconsideration, Ware repeats the vague, rambling, and confusing
arguments that he has made—and that the court has rejected—time and again over this five-year
litigation. For the reasons stated in the court’s March 30, 2016 Memorandum and Opinion, (Docket
Entry No. 150), Ware has not shown that manifest error or newly discovered evidence entitles him
to the relief he seeks.
The motion for reconsideration is denied. (Docket Entry No. 152).
SIGNED on May 19, 2016, at Houston, Texas.

______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge

2