meggett v. Ayala-Meggett
ORDER DENYING 20 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (aej)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
ALONZO MEGGETT, JR.,
Civil Action No. SA-15-CV-339-XR
On this date the Court considered Plaintiff Alonzo Meggett, Jr.’s Motion for
Reconsideration. Docket no. 20. After careful consideration, the Court DENIES the motion.
A complete background of this case can be found in this Court’s previous order adopting
Magistrate Judge John Primomo’s Memorandum and Recommendation. Docket no. 17. In short,
Pro se Plaintiff Alonzo Meggett Jr. filed suit against his ex-wife, Defendant Margaret AyalaMeggett, in this Court on April 27, 2015. Docket no. 1. Plaintiff later filed an amended
complaint, the crux of which was a request for this Court to vacate a divorce decree between him
and his ex-wife. Docket no. 10. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff also alleged that the Bexar
County District Clerk and his ex-wife’s attorney conspired against him and violated multiple
federal statutes and regulations, though he did not name either as a defendant. Id. Judge Primomo
recommended that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because both Plaintiff and his ex-wife were citizens of Texas and because there was
no federal question presented. Docket no. 11. Judge Primomo also recommended sanctioning
Plaintiff under Rule 11. Id. On December 11, 2015, this Court adopted the recommendation,
dismissed the case, and sanctioned Plaintiff $1,000 for “violat[ing] Rule 11 by pursuing claims
he should know to be frivolous, due to repeated explanations and warnings by Judge Primomo.”
Docket no. 17. On June 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Reconsideration and Order to Make
Whole Remedial Action as Legally Allowed and Counterclaim & Reference to Complaint,”
apparently seeking review of the Court’s order adopting Judge Primomo’s recommendation
because Plaintiff filed a counterclaim for $10,000 against Defendant in small claims court in a
different action. Docket no. 20.
The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration. A
motion invoking Rule 59(e) must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. FED.
R. CIV. P. 59. This rule “is properly invoked ‘to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to
present newly discovered evidence.’” In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir.
2002) (quoting Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989)). Rule 59(e) does
not give a movant the opportunity to present evidence, legal theories, or arguments available to
him before the entry of judgment. See Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir.
2004) (holding that a Rule 59(e) motion “is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal
theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.”).
Rule 59(e) does, however, allow a movant to “call[ ] into question the correctness of a
judgment.” In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d at 581. Accordingly, Rule 59(e) permits a court
to alter or amend a judgment due to (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of newly discovered evidence; or (3) a clear error of law or fact. See Schiller v.
Physicians Res. Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). However, Rule 59(e) “cannot be
used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.”
Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990). Reconsideration of a judgment after
it has been entered is a remedy that should be used only rarely. See Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.
Plaintiff filed his Motion for Reconsideration on June 2, 2017—533 days after the final
judgment was entered on December 11, 2015. Docket no. 18. Plaintiff does not provide a reason
for this delay, other than an attachment of a counterclaim in small claims court. Rule 59(e)
requires that a motion to alter or amend a judgment be filed no later than 28 days after the entry
of a judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 59. Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion is untimely—he filed his
motion 505 days past the Rule 59(e) deadline. Docket no. 20. His motion for reconsideration is
time barred by Rule 59(e).
Even if this Court were to ignore the untimeliness of his motion, Plaintiff has not cited a
change in controlling law, provided the Court with new evidence benefitting his case, or cited a
clear error of law or fact in the record. Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for a lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Docket no. 17. This Court found that there was no diversity jurisdiction
because both Plaintiff and his ex-wife were citizens of Texas, and that there was no federal
question presented in the complaint because any references to federal statutes applied to nonparties, such as the Bexar County District Clerk and his ex-wife’s attorney. Plaintiff has not
provided this Court with any new evidence establishing subject matter jurisdiction. There is
nothing in the record to indicate that Plaintiff and Defendant are now diverse. See Docket no. 20.
Consequently, Plaintiff is unable to establish subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff has also failed to present a federal question in his complaint. This Court found Plaintiff
did not allege facts that would give rise to a federal claim in his original and amended
complaints. Plaintiff’s motion does not provide new allegations of discrimination or any other
federal claims. Consequently, the Court still lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Docket no. 20) is
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 12th day of June, 2017.
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?