United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
KENYON J. GARRETT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
L. HAYES MAG. JUDGE
A. DOUGHTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is a Motion to Amend Judgment: FRCP 59 and
FRCP 60 (“Motion to Amend”) [Doc. No. 127] filed
by Plaintiff Kenyon J. Garrett (“Garrett”).
brought this action, pro se, after the death of his
father, Clarence Garrett. He contends that his father
received substandard medical care while being treated at
Overton Brooks V.A. Medical Center (“OBVAMC”) and
that substandard care culminated in his father's
premature death on August 28, 2015.
18, 2016, Garrett filed an administrative claim with the
Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”), alleging
that medical malpractice by OBVAMC health care providers
caused his father's death.
exhaustion of his administrative remedies, on June 6, 2016,
Garrett brought suit against the United States of America,
through the Department of Veteran Affairs and OBVAMC and
individual Defendants Kenneth Booth, Larry G. Thirstrup,
Robert Lukeman, Agmasie B. Woldie, Arvind Yekanath, Furqan
Mahammad, and other known and unknown medical staff, alleging
that they were responsible and liable for the death of his
father. Garrett alleged that Defendants were responsible for
abuse, negligence, false imprisonment, intimidation, and
medical malpractice, which resulted in Clarence Garrett's
psychological injury, emotional distress, and wrongful death.
Garrett requested compensatory damages totaling $4 million.
result of motion practice and stipulations, Garrett amended
his complaint more than once to include additional claims,
but eventually dismissed all Defendants except the United
November 2018, the parties filed cross motions for summary
judgment, and the United States filed a related Motion to
Strike. On February 19, 2019, the Court issued a Ruling and
Judgment [Doc. Nos. 116 & 117], granting in part and
denying part the United States' Motion to Strike, denying
Garrett's Motion for Summary Judgment, and granting the
United States' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court
dismissed the case with prejudice.
February 22, 2019, Garrett filed a Notice of Appeal [Doc. No.
118] to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
September 12, 2019, the Fifth Circuit issued an Opinion
denying the appeal and affirming the Court's granting of
summary judgment. On November 12, 2019, the Fifth Circuit
denied Garrett's petition for rehearing.
November 19, 2019, Garrett filed the instant motion in this
November 20, 2019, the Fifth Circuit denied Garrett's
motion for stay of the mandate pending petition for writ of
certiorari. [Doc. No. 128].
Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60 apply to final judgments.
Under Rule 59, a party may move to alter or amend a final
judgment within twenty-eight (28) days of its entry.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a
judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry
of the judgment.”). That Rule clearly does not apply in
this case as the motion was filed more than eight (8) months
after entry of judgment.
may also seek relief from judgment under Rule 60. “The
purpose of Rule 60(b) is to balance the principle of finality
of a judgment with the interest of the court in seeing that
justice is done in light of all the facts.” Hesling
v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir.2005).