Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brumfield v. Cooper

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division

December 4, 2019

ALAN VIRGIL BRUMFIELD, Plaintiff
v.
KATHRYN WIDHALM COOPER, ET AL., Defendants

          JAMES T. TRIMBLE, JR JUDGE

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the Court is a Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 19) filed by pro se Plaintiff Alan Virgil Brumfield (“Brumfield”) in a closed civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Brumfield seeks a “retraction” of the undersigned's Order (Doc. 18). Brumfield also requests that the undersigned be “removed” from the case. (Doc. 19)

         Because there is no basis to vacate the Order (Doc. 18) or for the undersigned to recuse, Brumfield's Motion (Doc. 19) is DENIED.

         I. Background

         The named Defendants in this case were both state public defenders. Brumfield alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his state criminal proceeding. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court dismissed Brumfield's initial § 1983 claim as frivolous. (Docs. 5, 6). Brumfield filed several motions (Docs. 7, 9, 11, 13), including one that was construed as a Motion to Amend and granted in error. (Doc. 18). Because the Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) was never properly pending before the Court, the Memorandum Order (Doc. 16) granting Brumfield's reconstrued Motion to Amend (Doc. 13) was subsequently vacated and stricken from the record. (Doc. 18).

         II. Law and Analysis

         Brumfield's Motion (Doc. 19) seeks restoration of the vacated Order (Doc. 16). Therefore, Brumfield's Motion (Doc. 19) is construed as a motion for reconsideration.

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for reconsideration. See Shepherd v. Int'l Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004); Cormier v. Turnkey Cleaning Servs., LLC, 295 F.Supp.3d 717, 719 (W.D. La. 2017). Nonetheless, motions for reconsideration are generally analyzed under the standards governing motions to alter or amend under Rule 59(e) or motions for relief from judgment or order under Rule 60(b). John Hancock Life Ins. Co. v. Estate of Wheatley, 4:18-CV-2869, 2019 WL 5964524, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2019) (citing Shepherd, 372 F.3d at 328 n.1 and Hamilton v. Williams, 147 F.3d 367, 371 n.10 (5th Cir. 1998)). Such motions are “‘not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.'” Id. (quoting Templet v. Hydro Chem., Inc., 367 F.3d 472, 478 (5th Cir. 2004) and In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)). Instead, motions to reconsider serve the narrow purpose of allowing “a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Id. “‘Mere disagreement with a district court's order does not warrant reconsideration of that order.'” Blue Spike, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 6:17-CV-16, 2018 WL 4261316, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 16, 2018) (quoting J2 Glob. Comm'n., Inc. v. Protus IP Sols., Inc., No. 6:08-CV-211, 2009 WL 440525 at *1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 2009)).

         Brumfield has not identified any errors of law or fact or newly discovered evidence to support his Motion (Doc. 19). As the undersigned stated in the vacating Order (Doc. 18), the Motion to Amend should have been mooted by the Court's Judgment of dismissal. (Doc. 18, p. 3). Because the Motion to Amend was mistakenly granted, the Amended Complaint was docketed, but the closed lawsuit remained closed. Therefore, the Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) was never properly pending before the Court. (Doc. 18, p. 4).

         When the Court signed its Judgment (Doc. 14) dismissing Brumfield's claims, it implicitly rejected Brumfield's Objections and the reconstrued Motion to Amend (Doc. 13). (Doc. 18, p. 4). In fact, the Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) named the same Defendants as the original Complaint (Doc. 1), which was dismissed as frivolous because the named Defendants were not state actors. Therefore, the Amended Complaint would have been subject to dismissal on the same grounds.

         Brumfield also asks that the undersigned be “removed” from the case, apparently because of his disagreement with the Order (Doc. 18). Brumfield's request should be construed as a motion to recuse.

         A magistrate judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.