Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08cv33-KS-MTP.
January 27, 2009
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [122]. The court, having considered the motion and the applicable law, finds that the Motion [122] should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff filed his Motion for Reconsideration [122] on or about January 7, 2009, asking the court to reconsider its Order [121] denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [100]. This court enjoys the inherent power to "reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient." Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 551, 553 (5th Cir. 1981). Generally, "motions to reconsider are analyzed under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." McDonald v. Entergy Operations, Inc., No. 5:03cv241BN, 2005 WL 1528611, at *1 (S.D. Miss. 2005). This court has "considerable discretion" in deciding whether to grant a motion for reconsideration. See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). However, granting a motion for reconsideration "is an extraordinary remedy and should be used sparingly." In re Pequeno, 240 Fed. Appx. 634, 636 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2004)).
Plaintiff also appealed the court's ruling [121] to the district court judge pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(A). See Motion for Review [124].
Rule 59(e) is not technically applicable to Plaintiff's Motion [122] since the Order [121] was not a final "judgment." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54; 59(e); 72. However, several district courts within the Fifth Circuit have applied the legal standards set forth in Rule 59(e) to motions to reconsider interlocutory orders. See W.C. Bulley v. Fid. Fin. Servs. of Miss., Inc., No. 3:00cv522-BN, 2000 WL 1349184, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 8, 2000); Goldman, 2006 WL 861016, at *1; Martinez v. Bohls Equip.Co., No. SA-04-CA-0120-XR, 2005 WL 1712214, at *1 (July 18, 2005). Accordingly, the court will apply the same standard to the instant motion.
A motion to reconsider is not "intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the judge[,]" McDonald, 2005 WL 1528611, at *1 (citations omitted), and its purpose "is not to re-debate the merits of a particular motion." W.C. Bulley v. Fidelity Financial Servs. Of Miss., Inc., No. 3:00cv522-BN, 2000 WL 1349184, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 8, 2000). Indeed, "[i]f a party is allowed to address a court's reasons as to why a motion was or was not granted, it would render the entire briefing process irrelevant and lead to endless motions to reconsider." Id.
There are only three grounds for which this court may grant a motion for reconsideration: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available, and (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." W.C. Bulley, 2000 WL 1349184, at *2 (citations omitted). If one of these three grounds is not present, the court must deny the motion. Id. at *3.
Plaintiff has cited to no change in controlling law or clear error of law. However, Plaintiff has submitted new evidence in reply to Defendants' Response [118]. Defendant Christopher Epps did not file a response to Plaintiff's Motion [122]. In his Response [118] to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [100], Defendant Epps claims Plaintiff did not make a request for a copy of any Gates v. Collier cases; however, Plaintiff claims he did make such a request, and attaches a copy of one of the requested Gates v. Collier opinions. See Ex. 3 [124-2]. Accordingly, Defendant Epps shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of the other opinion requested in his Motion [100], Gates v. Collier, 930 F.2d 916 (5th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff already has a copy of Gates v. Collier, 963 F.2d 370 (5th Cir. 1992), and the other requested cite, "Gates v. Collier, 929 F.2d 1991 U.S. App." is incorrect. See Motion [100] at 2.
In support of his Motion [122], Plaintiff asks the court to consider the arguments and exhibits set forth in his Motion for Review [124].
Defendant Epps also did not file a response to Plaintiff's Motion for Review [124].
Defendant Epps shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of the following statutes: Miss. Code Ann. § 97-11-11; § 97-11-13. Plaintiff submitted evidence suggesting there was a printing error which prevented him from obtaining a copy of these statutes. Defendant Epps has not responded to the motion and, therefore, does not contest this factual assertion. The other statutes requested in his Motion [122] were repealed or do not exist.
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-11-7 was repealed by Laws 1983, Ch. 469, § 10, eff. July 1, 1983.
Regarding Plaintiff's requests for CJS, ALR and AmJur materials, he has failed to show he is entitled to relief. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:
1. That Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider [122] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth below.
2. Defendant Epps shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of the opinion, Gates v. Collier, 930 F.2d 916 (5th Cir. 1991) within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.
3. Defendant Epps shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-11-11 and § 97-11-13 within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.
4. The remaining relief requested in Plaintiff's Motion [122] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED