Opinion
Civil Action 4:22-CV-00056-DAS
12-02-2022
REGGIE WILBURN PLAINTIFF v. SHAWN WORD DEFENDANT
ORDER
DAVID A. SANDERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff's motions [35], [38], [39], [40] to reconsider the Court's November 17, 2022 Memorandum Opinion and Order and Final Judgment dismissing Plaintiff's remaining claim(s) under Section 1983 against Defendant Shawn Word. See Doc. #s 28, 29. While Plaintiff has styled each of these motions differently,the nature of these motions are all the same-he is aggrieved by the Court's dismissal of his case and wishes for a different outcome.
Plaintiff styles Doc. # 35 as a “Motion to reopen all motion that was denied as moot issued by this Court November 17, 2022”; Doc. # 38 as a “Motion to clarify the court not holding a spear hearing or even setting a date before giving a final judgment . . .”; Doc. # 39 as a “Motion to Arrest Docket # 28, # 29 Memorandum Opinion and Order and Final Judgment .. .”; and Doc. # 40 as a “Motion to Amend to motion to arrest final judgment on the Law, to clarify claim against OCJ Jail Administrator Shawn Word . . .”.
As such, the Court interprets the motions, using the liberal standard for pro se litigants set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), as motions to reconsider the aforementioned opinion and order and final judgment. Because Plaintiff's motions were filed within twentyeight (28) days of the entry of judgment, the Court construes these motions as motions 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 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).
Accordingly, the Court finds that the instant motions [35], [38], [39], [40] are not well-taken, and are, therefore, DENIED.
SO ORDERED.