United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
HARRIS L. WILLIAMS
STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.
HORNSBY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
MAURICE HICKS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is a Motion to Reconsider Summary Judgment (Record
Document 70) filed by Plaintiff Harris L. Williams
(“Williams”). Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), Williams seeks reconsideration of
this Court's January 24, 2017 Memorandum Ruling and
Judgment, wherein Williams' racial discrimination claims
were dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. See
Record Documents 68 & 69. Williams argues that such
dismissal was “in error and creates manifest
injustice.” Record Document 70 at 2. Defendants oppose
the Motion to Reconsider. See Record Document 72.
For the reasons set forth below, Williams' Motion to
Reconsider is DENIED.
time of this Court's January 2017 ruling, Williams was
employed as a welding instructor at the Northwest Louisiana
Technical College in Shreveport, Louisiana. He alleged that
Defendants failed to award him a twelve month
contract because of his race. He filed the instant lawsuit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. §1981 and Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e,
et seq. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment (Record Document 28) seeking dismissal of
Williams' racial discrimination claims in their entirety
with prejudice. The Court granted such motion (Record
Documents 68 & 69) and Williams has now moved for
reconsideration (Record Document 70).
LAW AND ANALYSIS.
Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) Standards.
59(e) provides that “a motion to alter or amend a
judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry
of the judgment.” F.R.C.P. 59(e). “Generally, a
motion to alter or amend a judgment, filed under Rule 59(e)
may be granted: (1) to correct manifest errors of law or fact
upon which judgment is based; (2) the availability of new
evidence; (3) the need to prevent manifest injustice; or (4)
an intervening change in controlling law.” Hill v.
Kervin, No. CIV A 08-272-P, 2009 WL 2254295, at *1 (W.D.
La. July 28, 2009). Altering or amending a judgment is
considered “an extraordinary measure, which courts
should use sparingly.” In the Matter of Self,
172 F.Supp.2d 813, 816 (W.D.La.2001). “Rule 59(e) is
not a second bite at the summary judgment apple.”
Factor King, LLC v. Block Builders, LLC, 192
F.Supp.3d 690, 696 (M.D. La. 2016).
60(b) provides that “the court may relieve a party or
its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by
an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment
has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an
earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any
other reason that justifies relief.” F.R.C.P. 60(b).
“Relief under Rule 60(b) is considered an extraordinary
remedy, ” as the “desire for a judicial process
that is predictable mandates caution in reopening
judgments.” Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000,
1007 (5th Cir.1998) (citation omitted).
Statute of Limitations.
argues that this Court erred in concluding that a one year
limitations period applied to his Section 1981 claim because
“each contract after the initial formation was simply a
renewal and not a new contract.” Record Document 70-1
at 11. He also contends that the continuous violation theory
applies, such that his claims are not prescribed. See
id. at 14.
original ruling, this Court framed its analysis around
Williams' concession that his claims arise solely from
Defendants' failure to afford him a twelve-month
contract. See Record Document 34. In briefing
relating to the defense motion for summary judgment, Williams
stated that “he experienced an adverse employment
action by being denied a 12 month contract.” Record
Document 34 at 19. In a supplemental filing, he stated:
Plaintiff makes no comparison of total dollar value paid
annually. Plaintiff makes comparison between awards of 12
month and 9 month contracts. That is what is critical.
Document 38 at 4. This Court held that all of Williams'
claims and allegations were merely incidental to the award of
- or the failure to award - a ...