Opinion
Civil Action 3:23-CV-00473-MPM-RP
02-20-2024
ISHMAEL ALI EVANS PLAINTIFF v. CARL GAILLARD, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
MICHAEL P. MILLS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
This matter comes before the Court upon the pro se Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. # 17. In the instant action, Plaintiff complains generally of a denial of unlimited access to the jail's law library and further that he has been denied medical care for unidentified medical ailments. See Doc. 1. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (and temporary restraining order) as Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a denial of injunctive relief would cause him irreparable injury and that the ordinary judicial process was sufficient to remedy any injuries he has allegedly suffered, or may allegedly suffer, as a result of Defendants' alleged actions. See Doc. # 15. The Court further noted that it had not yet been determined whether there exists a justiciable basis for Plaintiff's claims such that they should proceed forward. See id.
As Plaintiff's instant motion was filed within twenty-eight (28) days from the entry of the order at issue, the Court construes the motion as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. An order granting relief under Rule 59(e) is only appropriate when: (1) there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) where the movant presents newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable, or (3) to correct a manifest error of law or fact. Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has neither asserted nor proven any of the justifications to amend a judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Instead, Plaintiff repeats general and conclusory allegations and quotes random authority, most of which comes from other circuits. See Doc. # 17. Apart from that, Plaintiff has attached a timeline in which he alleges he submitted sick calls on various days, mostly due to a cough for himself, but he also mentions illnesses suffered by other inmates. See Doc. # 18.
In sum, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the Rule 59(e) standard for reconsideration and the Court is otherwise unconvinced that reconsideration is warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion [17] for reconsideration of the Court's order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED,