Filed: May 12, 2017
Latest Update: May 12, 2017
Summary: ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT C. ASHLEY ROYAL , Senior District Judge . Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Floretta Respress's Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Order [Doc. 29] granting Defendant Navicent Health, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. In that Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Title VII claims because Plaintiff failed to provide enough factual matter, taken as true, to suggest retaliation or intentional discriminati
Summary: ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT C. ASHLEY ROYAL , Senior District Judge . Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Floretta Respress's Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Order [Doc. 29] granting Defendant Navicent Health, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. In that Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Title VII claims because Plaintiff failed to provide enough factual matter, taken as true, to suggest retaliation or intentional discriminatio..
More
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, Senior District Judge.
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Floretta Respress's Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Order [Doc. 29] granting Defendant Navicent Health, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. In that Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Title VII claims because Plaintiff failed to provide enough factual matter, taken as true, to suggest retaliation or intentional discrimination. Plaintiff now requests this Court to reconsider its Order and allow the case to continue through further Court proceedings. As explained below, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 31] is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On January 31, 2017, this Court granted Navicent's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Despite providing Plaintiff with two opportunities and giving clear instructions, Plaintiff still did not identify her protected class or statutorily protected activity to suggest a claim for retaliation or intentional discrimination under Title VII. Thus, the Court found Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismissed Plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice.
On February 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed the following letter with the Court:
In your ruling, you stated that I am not in a protected class. I feel that I am in a protected class of people who are frequently being discriminated against at this organization. Please refer to Causey v. Navicent Health Inc (5:15 cv-00230) and Gordon v. Navicent Health Inc (5:16-cv-00315). Both cases clearly show that discrimination is a habit for this organization.
I would like to plead to the court to continue my case, since there is evidence this organization has discriminated against others in the past. Hence, I am a protected class. Please accept this letter as a request to carry this case through further court proceedings.1
Because the letter was filed over twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment, the Court will analyze this as a Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, rather than Rule 59.2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
"Rule 60(b) provides that upon motion, a court may relieve a party of a final judgment for, among other things, mistake in the judgement and newly discovered evidence."3 Additionally, "[u]nder Rule 60(b)(6), a court may grant relief for any other reason justifying relief from the operation of judgment. Relief under this clause is an extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances."4 However, Local Rule 7.6 cautions that "[m]otions for reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice."5 Ultimately, "[w]hether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the district court."6
DISCUSSION
The Court finds no basis under Rule 60(b) to reconsider its prior decision. Plaintiff again does not identify her protected class or statutorily protected activity, nor does she explain how Navicent's alleged past discrimination shows she is in a protected class of individuals. Plaintiff's contentions do not fall within any of the specific circumstances set out in Rule 60(b)(1)-(5), and Plaintiff has not made a showing that exceptional circumstances warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6).7 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 31] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
