Opinion
CIVIL ACTION 18-1034-SDD-EWD
10-28-2019
SHANTRICE L. JONES v. SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY, ET AL.
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiff, Shantrice L. Jones ("Plaintiff"). Defendant Southern University ("Southern") has filed an Opposition to this motion, to which Plaintiff filed a Reply. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
Rec. Doc. No. 86.
Rec. Doc. No. 87.
Rec. Doc. No. 88.
A motion for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy and is rarely granted. Further, a motion for reconsideration "is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised prior to the entry of judgment." Such a motion is appropriate only to prevent manifest injustice or when new evidence exists.
Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
Id.
Van Horn v. Lopez-Beaver, 2008 WL 555361, at *1 (N.D.Tex. Feb. 29, 2008).
Plaintiff's motion is unaccompanied by a supporting memorandum, and Plaintiff fails to identify any bases for her motion, relying simply on the directive of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) that courts should grant leave to amend a complaint "freely ... when justice so requires."
Rec. Doc. No. 86, p. 1.
Plaintiff submitted a Reply to Southern's Opposition to her motion, wherein Plaintiff presents a factual narrative of the errors she assigns to the Court analysis of her claims. However, Plaintiff fails to direct the Court to any laws or jurisprudence supporting her arguments, and Plaintiff fails to address the Rule 59 standard or demonstrate how she has met those standards.
Nevertheless, the Court has considered Plaintiff's arguments and finds that none of the reasons for granting a motion for reconsideration apply in this case. Plaintiff erroneously argues that the Court evaluated evidence in this matter; however, on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court evaluated only the allegations of the Plaintiff's pleadings and did not consider any evidence at this procedural posture. Indeed, as the Court explained, Plaintiff's own allegations undermined several of her claims. Further, with respect to several other claims, Plaintiff simply ignores the laws that clearly preclude the viability of those claims. Plaintiff's motion is unsupported as a matter of fact and law. Further, the Court has already determined that yet another attempted amendment of her Complaint would be futile.
Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED, and Plaintiff's request to amend her Complaint is also DENIED.
Rec. Doc. No. 86. --------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 28 day of October, 2019.
/s/ _________
CHIEF JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA