Alex et al v. St. John the Baptist Parish Sheriff's Office et al, No. 2:2016cv17019 - Document 164 (E.D. La. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 163 Motion to Clarify. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

Download PDF
Alex et al v. St. John the Baptist Parish Sheriff's Office et al Doc. 164 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A SH AW AN D A N EVERS ALEX, ET AL., Plain tiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 16 -170 19 ST. J OH N TH E BAPTIST PARISH SH ERIFF’S OFFICE, ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is Plaintiffs Shawanda Nevers Alex, Daryl Alex, and Laquana Lewis’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) “Motion to Clarify” the order “in [r]egards to [the] St. J ohn the Baptist Parish Sheriff[’s] Departm ent, dism issed with prejudice.”1 This m otion references the Court’s Novem ber 7, 20 17 order granting St. J ohn the Baptist Parish Sheriff Mike Tregre, Detective Vernon Bailey, Detective Maurice Rodrigue, and Deputy J am es Bessinger’s (collectively the “St. J ohn Defendants”) m otion to dism iss, wherein the Court determ ined each of Plaintiffs’ claim s against the St. J ohn Defendants had prescribed. 2 Although Plaintiffs contend they “do not fully understand and [are] not exactly []clear to the prescription tim eline” and therefore “seek clarification” of the Court’s holding, they argue their claim s have not prescribed. The Court interprets Plaintiffs’ m otion as a m otion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting the St. J ohn Defendants’ m otion to dism iss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 3 For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the m otion. 1 R. Doc. 163. R. Doc. 159. 3 Id. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com A m otion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “m ust clearly establish either a m anifest error of law or fact or m ust present newly discovered evidence an d cannot be used to raise argum ents which could, and should, have been m ade before the judgm ent issued.”4 A m otion for reconsideration, however, “is ‘not the proper vehicle for rehashing eviden ce, legal theories, or argum ents that could have been offered or raised before the entry of [the order].’”5 “The Court is m indful that ‘[r]econsideration of a judgm ent after its entry is an extraordinary rem edy that should be used sparingly.’”6 “When there exists no independent reason for reconsideration other than m ere disagreem ent with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial tim e and resources an d should not be granted.”7 In deciding m otions under the Rule 59(e) standards, the courts in this district have considered the following factors: (1) whether the m ovant dem onstrates the m otion is n ecessary to correct m anifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgm ent is based; (2) whether the m ovant presents new eviden ce; (3) whether the m otion is necessary in order to prevent m anifest injustice; and (4) whether the m otion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling law. 8 In their m otion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs argue the Court should grant their m otion under the first option, averring their claim s against the St. J ohn Defendants have 4 Schiller v. Phy sicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 20 0 3) (citations om itted) (internal quotation m arks om itted). 5 Lacoste v. Pilgrim Int’l, No. 0 7-290 4, 20 0 9 WL 1565940 , at *8 (E.D. La. J un e 3, 20 0 9) (quoting Tem plet v. Hy droChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 – 79 (5th Cir. 20 0 4)). 6 Castrillo v. Am . Hom e Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 0 9-4369, 20 10 WL 1424398, at *4 (alteration in original) (quoting Tem plet, 367 F.3d at 479). 7 Lightfoot v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 0 7-4833, 20 12 WL 711842, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 20 12). 8 Castrillo, 20 10 WL 1424398, at *4. The Court notes that the tim e lim its of Rule 59 do not apply in this m atter because the order appealed is interlocutory. Rules 59 and 60 set forth deadlines for seeking reconsideration of final judgm ents. See Carter v. Farm ers Rice Milling Co., Inc., 33 F. App’x 70 4 (5th Cir. 20 0 2); Lightfoot, 20 12 WL 711842, at *2. 2 not prescribed and the Court’s ruling was based on a m anifest error of fact. 9 In ruling on the St. J ohn Defendants’ m otion to dism iss, the Court determ ined Plaintiffs’ causes of action against the St. J ohn Defendants stem m ed from alleged actions that took place between Decem ber 20 13, when Plaintiffs allege Detective Rodrigue stood inside Plaintiffs’ restaurant “until all patrons were uncom fortable and left restaurant,”10 and J anuary 7, 20 15, when the St. J ohn Parish Sheriff’s Office sold Plaintiff’s property, notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ being in bankruptcy proceedings. 11 Because Plaintiffs did not bring their claim s against the St. J ohn Defendants until Decem ber 9, 20 16, m ore than a year and ten m onths after the last event took place, 12 the Court granted the m otion to dism iss based on prescription. 13 Plaintiffs now argue the “last [a]ctually [sic] event that took place was the trial on [sic] February 20 16.”14 Plaintiffs apparently refer to their allegation that “[t]he DA called one of the St. J ohn [the Baptist] Parish Sheriff[’]s em ployee[s] to the stand to say Plaintiff Nevers[’s] nam e was not on [the] occupational license and plaintiff Nevers could not enter into that agreem ent.”15 This factual allegation, however, is followed by the allegation that the DA Defendants, not the unnam ed St. J ohn the Baptist em ployee, “denied [Plaintiffs] due process under the law.”16 After providing m ore allegations about the February 20 16 trial, Plaintiffs’ com plaint then states “[t]hese actions clearly shows [sic] judicial 9 R. Doc. 163 at 3– 5. R. Doc. 7-1 at 10 . 11 R. Doc. 159 at 6. 12 R. Doc. 1. 13 R. Doc. 159 at 6, 10 . 14 R. Doc. 163 at 4. 15 R. Doc. 7-1 at 24. 16 Id. at 24. 10 3 m isconduct from [the] DA’s office.”17 Plaintiffs did not assert a cause of action against the St. J ohn Defendants with respect to the February 18 , 20 16 trial. 18 Accordingly; Plaintiffs’ m otion for reconsideration is D EN IED as set forth above. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 5th d ay o f D e ce m be r, 2 0 17. ______________________ _________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 17 Id. at 25 (em phasis added). The Court notes Plaintiffs’ federal claim s against the DA Defendants were dism issed with prejudice on April 19, 20 17. R. Doc. 76. The Court dism issed Plaintiffs’ state law claim s against the DA Defendants without prejudice on Novem ber 16, 20 17. R. Doc. 160 . 18 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.