United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
DR. THAYNE GRIENER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ORDER AND REASONS
L. C. FELDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration
of the Court's Order and Reasons dismissing the case
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1).
For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
facts underlying this case are set out fully in the
Court's previous Order and Reasons and for the sake of
brevity are not repeated here. Dr. Thayne Griener filed this
lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the
Government. He worked at the Southeast Louisiana Veterans
Health Care System in New Orleans as a part-time employee.
Following his termination in July 2012, Dr. Griener pursued
numerous administrative remedies, all of which were denied.
He ultimately filed this civil lawsuit claiming he had been
subjected to a prohibited personnel practice, namely,
terminated in retaliation for complaining about VA practices.
In response, the Government contended that his FTCA claims
were preempted by the Civil Services Reform Act (CSRA) and
moved the Court to dismiss his claims for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. The Court granted the Government's
motion and dismissed Dr. Griener's claims. Dr. Griener
now moves for reconsideration of that dismissal under Rule
district court has considerable discretion to grant or to
deny a motion for reconsideration. See Edward H. Bohlin
Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). A
court's reconsideration of an earlier order is an
extraordinary remedy, which should be granted sparingly.
See Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., No. 97-3170, 1998
WL 43217, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 1998), aff'd,
182 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 1999); Bardwell v. George G.
Sharp, Inc., Nos. 93-3590, 93-3591, 1995 WL 517120, at
*1 (E.D. La. Aug. 30, 1995). The Court must "strike the
proper balance" between the need for finality and
"the need to render just decisions on the basis of all
the facts." Edward H. Bohlin Co., 6 F.3d at
355. Thus, the Fifth Circuit has held that "a 59(e)
motion to reconsider should not be granted unless: (1) the
facts discovered are of such a nature that they would
probably change the outcome; (2) the facts alleged are
actually newly discovered and could not have been discovered
earlier by proper diligence; and (3) the facts are not merely
cumulative or impeaching." Infusion Resources, Inc.
v. Minimed, Inc., 351 F.3d 688, 696-97 (5th Cir. 2003).
Courts have consistently denied relief under Rule 59(e) where
the moving party seeks only to reargue the same points
without offering new evidence or new legal support. Sears
v. Lee, 2010 WL 324385, at *1 (E.D. La. Jan. 20, 2010).
root of the plaintiff's argument for reconsideration is
an idea that there is a fundamental unfairness in his
inability to pursue an FTCA claim in this Court when the
Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) also dismissed an appeal
of his termination because of his part-time employee status.
The issue, he argues, is that the MSPB precluded him from
pursuing his termination claims because he was a part-time
employee and this Court also precludes his termination claims
because his appointed position falls in a category
statutorily preempted from bringing FTCA claims. As such, the
plaintiff has hit a dead end of avenues upon which to sue the
dismissing the plaintiff's case, the Court relied on
Congress' intent, and courts' interpretations of that
intent, when enacting the CSRA. The Court now reiterates that
“[t]he Fifth Circuit has held that in view of the
remedial system set forth in the CSRA, the CSRA provides the
exclusive remedy for claims against federal employers for
conduct constituting ‘prohibited personnel practices,
' and ‘preempts any judicial remedy for
such claims.” Buckhanan v. Shinseki, No.
13-278, 2013 WL 5517903, *3 (S.D.Miss. Oct. 3, 2013) (quoting
Schwartz v. Int'l Federation of Prof'l &
Tech. Eng'rs, AFL-CIO, 306 F. App'x 168, 172
(5th Cir. 2009)) (emphasis added). “In fact, a federal
employee's personnel-related complaints are preempted
‘even if no remedy [is] available . under the
CSRA.'” Mangano v. United States, 529 F.3d
1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Collins v.
Bender, 195 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999)).
motion, the plaintiff does not allege newly discovered facts
or evidence or a change in law. Rather, he implies that the
Court overlooked the unfairness in its outcome when it held
he could not pursue his personnel-related complaints in this
Court, knowing that the MSPB also precluded him from pursuing
his claims. Dr. Griener merely seeks to reargue the same
points without offering new evidence or new legal support