United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER & REASONS
the Court is pro se Third-Party Plaintiff Kristian
Craige's ("Craige") Motion to Reconsider the
Court's denial of Plaintiff s motion for a default
judgment against counter-defendant MidFirst Bank. R. Doc. 41.
While no party has yet entered an opposition to the motion,
the Court has reviewed Plaintiffs arguments and the
applicable law, and now issues this Order and Reasons.
tort case involves a dispute arising out of a promissory note
executed by Kristian Craige, dated June 16, 2003, regarding
an Act of Mortgage executed on the same date. R. 1-1 at 1.
The note was executed in favor of New Freedom Mortgage
Corporation in the principal amount $73, 369.00 and
stipulating 6% interest per annum on the unpaid balance. R.
1-1 at 1. While the viability of the transfers is disputed,
the record indicates that New Freedom Mortgage endorsed the
mortgage note to Citimortgage, Inc., and Citimortgage, Inc.
in turn endorsed the note to Midfirst Bank. R. 1-1 at 2. On
December 17, 2014, Midfirst Bank instituted foreclosure
proceedings in state court to collect on the unpaid principal
on the note, $65, 795.39. R. 1-1 at 3. According to the
Petition filed in state Court, Craige had not made his
scheduled mortgage payments since May 1, 2014. R. 1-1 at
March 15, 2016, Craige filed apro se counterclaim in
state court against Midfirst Bank ("Midfirst"),
Citimortgage, Inc., Citibank N.A., and Citigroup Inc
("the Citi Entities"). Craige argues the Defendants
conspired to commit fraud against him, and deprive him of his
property. The counterclaim alleges numerous procedural errors
committed by Midfirst during the foreclosure process, and
also claims that the assignment of the note "has yet to
be verified." R. 1-2 at 3.
26, 2016, the Court held that Plaintiffs tort claims were
prescribed, but granted leave for Plaintiff to amend his
complaint and re-assert any non-prescribed claims. R. 19. On
August 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to "re-urge
any non-prescribed claims, " but did not specify any of
the new claims he wished to assert against Defendants. R. 21.
The Court denied the Motion and explained that Plaintiff was
barred from re-urging the claims in the initial Complaint, as
the Court already determined those claims had prescribed. R.
23. The Court granted Plaintiff a third opportunity to file
another Complaint alleging a non-prescribed claim, if such a
claim exists. R. 23.
response, Plaintiff filed a motion to re-urge a Complaint
with non-prescribed claims against any of the parties. R. 26.
Plaintiff asserted four additional claims, which he argued
were not prescribed. First, Plaintiff brought a breach of
contract claim against the Citi Entities. R. 26 at 3. Second,
Plaintiff asserted claims for violations of the Uniform
Commercial Code §3-305 and Recoupment. R. 26 at 3-4.
Third, Plaintiff argued that the Citi Entities violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. R. 26 at 4-5.
Fourth, Plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to quiet title
to the property, because of the Citi Entities fraudulent
conduct, and that he had adverse possession rights. R. 26 at
5-6. In connection to these claims, Plaintiff sought $4, 000,
000.00 in damages. R. 26 at 6.
26, 2017, the Court granted the Citi Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss, finding that Plaintiff had failed to plead
factual allegations which entitled him to relief against the
Citi Entities. R. Doc. 38. Plaintiff then filed a motion for
default judgment against counter-defendant MidFirst Bank. R.
Doc. 39. The Court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff
had failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 55. R. Doc. 40.
Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (R. 41)
28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Rebut the
Court's Order." R. Doc. 41. The Court will interpret
this filing as a motion for reconsideration. In his motion,
Plaintiff re-asserts many of the same arguments he had
previously raised in this litigation. He contends he is a
Native American Choctaw and thus entitled to equal protection
rights under the United Nations Declaration of the Right of
Indigenous Peoples. R. 34 at 1. He alleges that as a pro se
Plaintiff, he is entitled to the less stringent pleading
standards afforded to pro se litigants. R. 34 at 2. He argues
that MidFirst Bank violated his right to Due Process, as well
as his First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment Rights. R. 34 at 2.
Further, Plaintiff alleges that MidFirst Bank has failed to
file an answer in this Court. R. 41 at
LAW AND ANALYSIS
initial matter, the Court finds it necessary to emphasize
that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order
denying his motion for default. Plaintiffs claims against
MidFirst were not dismissed. While Plaintiff is certainly
entitled to the more lenient standard afforded to pro se
litigants, this Court is not required to prosecute this case
on his behalf
Motion for Reconsideration Standard
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. Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat
Rentals, Inc.,784 F.2d 665, 666 (5th Cir. 1986). The
motion is considered a Rule 59(e) motion if filed no later
than 28 days from the entry of a judgment, and a Rule 60(b)
motion if filed after this time period. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e). Here, ...