United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
PATRICK A. DAVIS
MID STATE HOMES, ET AL.
ELIZABETH E. FOOTE, UNITED STATES DBTRZCT JUDGE.
before the Court is a Motion for Relief from Judgment filed
by Plaintiff Patrick A. Davis ("Plaintiff), proceeding
pro se. [Record Document 41]. The motion is unopposed. For
the reasons discussed below, the motion is
Court recently granted a motion to dismiss filed by
Defendants Mid State Homes and Green Tree Servicing L.L.C.,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Record
Document 39. Plaintiffs claims were dismissed with prejudice,
and the case was closed. Record Document 40. Plaintiff now
seeks relief from the Court's judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Record Document 41-1,
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to file a
motion to alter or amend a judgment. "Rules 59(e) and
60(b) permit the same relief-a change in the judgment."
Harcon Barge Co., Inc. v. D & G Boat Rentals,
Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 669 (5th Cir. 1986). A motion for
relief from judgment is analyzed under Rule 59(e) if it is
filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment; otherwise, it
is analyzed under Rule 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) & 60(b); Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291,
303 (5th Cir. 2010) ("When a litigant files a motion
seeking a change in judgment, courts typically determine the
appropriate motion based on whether the litigant filed the
motion within Rule 59(e)'s time limit"). Here,
Plaintiffs motion was filed within 28 days from the entry of
judgment and will be analyzed under Rule 59(e). See
Record Documents 40 & 41.
altering or amending a judgment is an extraordinary remedy,
it must be used sparingly. Templet v. HydroChem
Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing
Clancy v. Emp'rs Health Ins. Co., 101 F.Supp.2d
463, 465 (E.D. La. 2000)). In fact, the Fifth Circuit has
noted that the standards for Rule 59(e) favor the denial of
such motions. S. Constructors Group, Inc. v. Dynalectric
Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993). Motions under Rule
59(e) are "not the proper vehicle for rehashing
evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been
offered or raised before the entry of judgment.... Rather,
Rule 59(e) serve[s] the narrow purpose of allowing a party to
correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence." Templet, 367 F.3d at 479
(internal citations and marks omitted). Motions under Rule
59(e) and 60(b) should not be used to advance arguments
already presented or relitigate matters that have been
resolved, albeit to the moving party's dissatisfaction.
See S. Snow Mfg. Co., Inc. v. SnoWizard Holdings,
Inc., 921 F.Supp.2d 548, 566 (E.D. La. 2013); Jena
Band of Choctaw Indians v. Tri-Millennium Corp., Inc.,
2006 WL 51130, *1 (W.D. La. Jan. 9, 2006). Reconsideration of
a prior ruling under such circumstances is considered a waste
of judicial time and resources. See S. Snow Mfg.,
921 F.Supp.2d at 566.
instant case, Plaintiffs motion does not set forth any
manifest errors of law or fact or any newly discovered
evidence that would permit this Court to alter or amend its
judgment. Plaintiff spends the majority of his brief
rehashing arguments that this Court has already rejected. To
the extent that he seeks to introduce new arguments at this
stage, the Court will not consider them. Therefore, Plaintiff
is not entitled to an alteration or amendment of judgment
pursuant to Rule 59(e).
would Plaintiff be entitled to relief from judgment pursuant
to Rule 60(b) if the Court were to evaluate his motion under
that rule. In order to be eligible for relief pursuant to
Rule 60(b), the petitioner must demonstrate one of the six
grounds authorizing such relief, namely (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment
has been satisfied, released or discharged; or (6) any other
reason that justifies relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Plaintiff
has satisfied none of these requirements and is therefore not
entitled to relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b).
on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Motion for Relief from Judgment
[Record Document 41 ] is hereby DENIED.