Barnes v. United States of America
ORDER DENYING #78 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (td)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.,
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 59(E), Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Texas Bill
of Rights, filed June 8, 2015 (Clerk’s Dkt. #78). Plaintiff asks this Court to reconsider its Order
dated June 4, 2015 denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, and severing and remanding Plaintiff’s
claims against all defendants other than Kathleen Gittel, Harold Poppa and Lacey Loftin. By way
of her motion to reconsider, Plaintiff seeks to have the remaining claims in this action against
Kathleen Gittel, Harold Poppa and Lacey Loftin remanded as well.
Although Plaintiff’s motion references Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(E), such provision
is not applicable because no judgment has been entered in this matter. The Court will construe
Plaintiff’s motion as a request for relief from the Court’s Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Under Rule 60(b), a party may seek relief from a court’s order for a number of reasons,
including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud,
misrepresentation, misconduct or “any other reason that justifies relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b).
“Due to the interest in finality, motions for reconsideration are granted only when the moving party
shows there was a mistake of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence that could not
have been discovered previously.” Minh Tran. v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 2001 Dist. LEXIS
14039 at 6 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2001). It is within the sound discretion of the court whether to grant
or deny relief under Rule 60(b). Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 2005).
In her motion, Plaintiff reasserts many of the arguments she has already presented in her
Objections to Notice of Removal and Motion to Remand and the Memorandum in Support thereof.
What Plaintiff fails to do, however, is present any credible argument showing there was a mistake
in law or fact, or any newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered previously.
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the applicable case law and the entire case file, this Court is of
the opinion that its Order of June 4, 2015 is correct, and that Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider should
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 59(E), Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,
and Texas Bill of Rights (Clerk’s Dkt. #78) is hereby DENIED.
SIGNED on June 15, 2015.
ROBERT L. PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?