Hamilton-Provost v. Astrue

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENIED Plaintiff's motion under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the Court's judgment [Doc. # 20]. (Signed by Judge Nancy F. Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, 4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOHN W. HAMILTON-PROVOST,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-2585

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In this appeal from denial of Social Security benefits, the Court granted
summary judgment in favor of Defendant on December 10, 2013, and entered a Final
Judgment. See Memorandum and Order [Doc. # 18]; Final Judgment [Doc. # 19]. On
December 30, 2013, Plaintiff John W. Hamilton-Provost, who is incarcerated and
proceeding pro se, requested additional time to respond to the Court’s decision. See
Doc. # 20. The Court deemed Plaintiff’s request a motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). See Doc. # 22. Plaintiff was granted time to brief his motion, which
he now has done. See Docs. # 25, # 26, # 27. Defendant has not responded.
Rule 59(e) permits a litigant to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment.
Reconsideration of a judgment is an “extraordinary remedy,” and Rule 59(e) serves

C:\Users\shelia_ashabranner\AppData\Local\Temp\notesE1EF34\2585r59ord.wpd

140502.1018

a “narrow purpose” of allowing a party to bring errors or newly discovered evidence
to the Court’s attention. In re Rodriguez, 695 F.3d 360, 371-72 (5th Cir. 2012);
Templet v. Hydrochem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004). A litigant seeking
relief under Rule 59(e) “must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or
must present newly discovered evidence.” Balakrishnan v. Bd. of Supervisors of La.
State Univ. & Agr. & Mech. Coll., 452 F. App’x 495, 499 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Ross
v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks and citation
omitted)). A Rule 59(e) motion “cannot be used to argue a case under a new legal
theory.” Id. (citing Ross, 426 F.3d at 763). Moreover, “an unexcused failure to
present evidence available at the time of summary judgment provides a valid basis for
denying a subsequent motion for reconsideration.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 479 (citing
Russ v. Int’l Paper Co., 943 F.2d 589, 593 (5th Cir. 1991)).
Plaintiff’s post-judgment briefing and exhibits pertain mostly to medical
records regarding Plaintiff’s vision, including optometry records from 2003-2008 that
previously were considered by this Court. He reurges arguments made in his prejudgment briefing. These filings do not establish a manifest error of law or fact in the
Court’s Memorandum and Order granting summary judgment. This Court previously
granted summary judgment to Defendant because the record contained substantial
evidence supporting the conclusion by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that

C:\Users\shelia_ashabranner\AppData\Local\Temp\notesE1EF34\2585r59ord.wpd

2

140502.1018

Plaintiff’s allegations of blindness were not credible. The ALJ’s resolution of
conflicting evidence regarding blindness was a task squarely within the ALJ’s
province. See Memorandum and Order [Doc. # 18], at 18-19. This Court has no
authority to second-guess the credibility findings of the ALJ. See id. (citing cases).
In addition, Plaintiff submits records from optometry examinations performed
on February 6, 2014. See Doc. # 26. These records are outside the relevant time
period for the case at bar. Plaintiff’s eligibility period for disability benefits was
December 14, 2002, through December 31, 2006, and for SSI benefits, Plaintiff was
eligible from December 14, 2002, through July 25, 2011. See Memorandum and
Order [Doc. # 18], at 3-4.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the
Court’s judgment [Doc. # 20] is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 2nd day of May, 2014.

C:\Users\shelia_ashabranner\AppData\Local\Temp\notesE1EF34\2585r59ord.wpd

3

140502.1018