Opinion
1:24-CV-19-SA-RP
10-31-2024
MARCO HARRISON PLAINTIFF v. THOMAS OWENS and TRUSTMARK NATIONAL BANK DEFENDANTS
ORDER
SHARION AYCOCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On September 5, 2024, the Court entered an Order [18] dismissing Harrison's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Harrison has now filed a Motion for Reconsideration [19], wherein he “asks the Court to reconsider final judgment to allow Plaintiff to resubmit a complaint against Defendant that provides a private right of action.” [19] at p. 1. The Defendants oppose the request.
“A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment is an ‘extraordinary remedy' that serves the ‘narrow purpose' of ‘allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.'” Wilson v. Mississippi, 20212 WL 12878153, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 16, 2022) (quoting Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004)). “Its proper use does not extend to rehash evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been presented before judgment was entered.” Id. (citation omitted).
The Court sees no need to reconsider its prior ruling. It is worth noting that after Harrison originally filed his Complaint [1], the Court entered an Order to Show Cause [4] wherein it identified for Harrison certain concerns pertaining to federal question jurisdiction. The Court permitted Harrison to file an Amended Complaint [5]. The Amended Complaint [5] did not identify a basis for federal question jurisdiction and the Court therefore dismissed the case. The Court's Order [18] clearly articulated the lack of federal question jurisdiction, and nothing in Harrison's current filing justifies revisiting that ruling.
The extraordinary relief that Harrison now seeks is not warranted. The Motion [19] is DENIED. This CASE remains CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.