United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Jackson Jones’s Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 37). Though Plaintiff’s motion is not clear as to which Court order he would like reconsidered, the Court will construe the motion as a motion to reconsider the Court’s Order & Reasons, issued January 16, 2015, which granted Defendant Tidewater’s motion for a Rule 54(b) judgment dismissing it from the case. (Rec. Doc. 35). At this time, the Court will also consider Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order directing him to show cause for his failure to serve the remaining defendants in the case. (Rec Doc. 36).
On May 6, 2014, Jackson Jones (Plaintiff) filed suit against Tidewater, Inc. (“Tidewater”) and against other defendants whom Jones has not yet served. In 2005, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court alleging similar claims against Tidewater all based on his employment with the Defendant from 1978-1979. Jackson C. Jones, Jr. v. Tidewater Marine, LLC, et al., Docket No. 05-3076. Those claims were dismissed with prejudice on the basis of prescription on May 3, 2007, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed that Judgment in a per curiam opinion dated January 29, 2008. Jones v. Tidewater Marine LLC, Docket No. 07-30510 (5th Cir. 2008).
On October 2, 2014, the Court granted Defendant Tidewater’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice, finding that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata; were prescribed; and that the Plaintiff had failed to allege facts that stated a claim for relief that was plausible on its face. (Rec. Doc. 21). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order & Reasons, which the Court denied on November 12, 2014. (Rec. Doc. 30). At that time, however, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, giving Plaintiff 60 days to obtain a lawyer and serve the remaining Defendants
On January 14, 2015, the Court granted Defendant Tidewater’s Motion for a Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). (Rec. Doc. 33). The Court found no just reason to delay entry of a final judgment as to Tidewater. Because the Plaintiff has named seven other defendants, the Court found that the claims against the remaining defendants might not be resolved for some time, and a final judgment as to Tidewater was appropriate.
On January 14, 2015, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to show good cause by February 12, 2015, as to why he has not served the remaining defendants. Plaintiff responded on February 18, 2015, after the Court’s deadline.
II. PRESENT MOTION (Rec. Doc. 35)
Plaintiff has filed a second Motion for Reconsideration. Although he fails to specify which Order of this Court he would like reconsidered, the Court will construe this motion as a Motion to Reconsider the Court’s Order & Reasons, issued January 16, 2015, which granted Defendant Tidewater’s motion for a Rule 54(b) judgment dismissing it from the case. (Rec. Doc. 35). As the Court has previously denied Plaintiff’s earlier Motion to Reconsider the initial order dismissing Tidewater from the case, further reconsideration of that order would be inappropriate. In his motion, Plaintiff rehashes the history of his injury, which he alleges resulted from Defendant Tidewater’s negligence. (Rec. Doc. 35 at 1). He further alleges that he suffered from amnesia as a result of the incident, rendering him unable to bring suit in a timely fashion. (Rec. Doc. 35 at 1). Plaintiff also argues that the Court should re-instate his claim against Tidewater based on Louisiana law and earlier administrative proceedings. (Rec. Doc. 35 at 2-3).
III. RESPONSE TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE (Rec. Doc. 36)
Plaintiff has responded to the Court’s Rule to Show Cause as to why he has not served the remaining defendants. (Rec. Doc. 36). Plaintiff was previously ordered to serve remaining defendants within 30 days of October 2, 2014. Plaintiff requested an extension, which the court granted on November 12, 2014, giving him 60 days from that point to obtain an attorney and serve remaining defendants. That deadline has passed, and the remaining defendants remain unserved. In his response to the show cause order, Plaintiff reasserts both his claims and his opposition to Tidewater’s motion to dismiss, which was previously granted by this Court. Plaintiff offers no explanation for his failure to serve the remaining defendants.
IV. LAW & ANALYSIS
A. MOTION TO RECONSIDER
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically recognize a motion for reconsideration. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Fair Grounds Corp., 123 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir. 1997). However, when a movant seeks review of a judgment, such as in the present case, courts treat a motion for reconsideration as either a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment, or as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment or order. Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tools Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990). The motion is considered a Rule 59(e) motion if filed no later than 28 days of entry of a judgment, and a Rule 60(b) motion if filed after this time period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Here, Plaintiff ...