United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial (Doc. 64).
For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
ORDER AND REASONS
TRICHE MILAZZO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dr. Gregg Spaulding Hunter, brought this suit alleging that
Defendants, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners
(“the LSBME” or “the Board”) and its
members, Mark Dawson, J. Michael Burdine, Kweli Amusa, Joseph
Busby, Roderick Clark, Kenneth Farris, Christy Valentine,
Cecilia Mouton (collectively, “Individual
Defendants”), wrongfully suspended his license to
practice as a certified psychiatrist based on the complaints
of one patient. Plaintiff alleged that the LSBME failed to
conduct any investigation or hearing regarding the veracity
of the complaint prior to requiring that he submit to a
costly mental evaluation and later suspending his license.
only remaining claim at the summary judgment stage was a
claim for injunctive relief against the Individual Defendants
in their official capacities for violation of his procedural
due process rights. This Court granted the Individual
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, holding that
Plaintiff had waived his right to procedural due process
prior to being ordered to undergo evaluation by signing a
consent order. The Court held that it was within the
Board's power and sole discretion both by law and by
Plaintiff's own agreement to order Plaintiff to submit to
a medical evaluation.
now moves for relief from this Court's judgment
dismissing his claim, arguing that the Court committed
manifest errors of law and fact.
59(e) motion “[i]s not the proper vehicle for rehashing
evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been
offered or raised before the entry of
judgment.” Instead, Rule 59(e) serves the narrow
purpose of correcting “‘manifest error[s] of law
or fact or . . . presenting newly discovered
evidence.'“ “‘Manifest error' is one
that ‘is plain and indisputable, and that amounts to a
complete disregard of the controlling
law.'” In the Fifth Circuit, altering, amending,
or reconsidering a judgment under Rule 59(e) “[i]s an
extraordinary remedy that should be used
sparingly.” While district courts have
“considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant
or deny a motion to alter a judgment, ” denial is
order to succeed on Rule 59 Motion, Plaintiff must identify
(1) a manifest error of law or fact upon which the judgment
is based; (2) newly discovered evidence; or an (3)
intervening change in the controlling law.Plaintiff argues
only that this Court committed a manifest error of law and
fact in its dismissal of his claim.
Motion, Plaintiff argues vehemently that this Court's
order recited facts for which there was no evidence in the
record. To the contrary, however, the facts recited by the
Court were supported by the evidence attached to
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff does
not identify any evidence contradicting these facts. More
importantly, however, the facts of which Plaintiff complains
had no bearing on this Court's ultimate decision.
Plaintiff has not identified a manifest error of fact
committed by this Court.
Plaintiff contests this Court's application of the law.
He does not, however, identify any law contrary to this
Court's holding. Instead, he misconstrues this Court
holding and complains about its level of analysis. Plaintiff