Filed: Dec. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 06, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION DEBRA M. BROWN , District Judge . This pro se prisoner action is before the Court on Leroy Barnett's motion for reconsideration. Doc. #50. I Procedural History On September 14, 2015, Leroy Barnett, an inmate in Unit 29 at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, filed a "Prisoner's Complaint Challenging Conditions of Confinement" against: (1) Marshall Fisher, the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections; (2) Earnest Lee, the Superintendent of t
Summary: ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION DEBRA M. BROWN , District Judge . This pro se prisoner action is before the Court on Leroy Barnett's motion for reconsideration. Doc. #50. I Procedural History On September 14, 2015, Leroy Barnett, an inmate in Unit 29 at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, filed a "Prisoner's Complaint Challenging Conditions of Confinement" against: (1) Marshall Fisher, the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections; (2) Earnest Lee, the Superintendent of th..
More
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
DEBRA M. BROWN, District Judge.
This pro se prisoner action is before the Court on Leroy Barnett's motion for reconsideration. Doc. #50.
I
Procedural History
On September 14, 2015, Leroy Barnett, an inmate in Unit 29 at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, filed a "Prisoner's Complaint Challenging Conditions of Confinement" against: (1) Marshall Fisher, the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections; (2) Earnest Lee, the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary; and (3) Timothy Morris, the "Warden over Unit 29." Doc. #1. Barnett's complaint alleged that he suffered injuries from the use of unlawful force during a "shakedown" of Unit 29. Id. at 4-5.
On January 28, 2016, Barnett appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden for a Spears hearing. Doc. #12. At the Spears hearing, Barnett clarified that he was asserting three claims — an excessive force claim arising from the shakedown, a denial of medical treatment claim based on the prison's response to injuries Barnett suffered during the shakedown, and a separate allegation that "various Mississippi Department of Corrections personnel . . . retaliated against him because he has sought state post-conviction collateral relief to overturn his convictions for murder and aggravated assault — and also because he has drafted pleadings for other inmates during his time in prison." Doc. #14 at 2.
Four days later, on February 1, 2016, Judge Virden issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the claims "against Marshall Fisher and Earnest Lee should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. However, his claim against Warden Timothy Morris for failure to protect him from use of excessive force by the personnel conducting the shakedown [should] proceed." Id. at 7. Barnett did not object to the Report and Recommendation within the time allowed. On May 27, 2016, this Court entered an order adopting the Report and Recommendation as the order of the Court. Doc. #21.
On September 29, 2016, Morris filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. #34. Barnett did not respond to the motion for summary judgment but, on October 25, 2016, filed a motion seeking to transfer this case to the Oxford Division of this Court. Doc. #39. Six days later, on October 31, 2016, Barnett filed his own motion for summary judgment. Doc. #42. Morris did not respond to Barnett's motion.
On November 17, 2016, Judge Virden denied Barnett's motion to transfer. Doc. #43. On December 2, 2016, Barnett filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the denial. Doc. #45.
On May 23, 2017, this Court granted Morris' motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was no evidence Morris had knowledge of the alleged attack. Doc. #48. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice. Doc. #49. On or about June 10, 2017, Barnett filed the instant motion for reconsideration. Doc. #50.
II
Analysis
Under Fifth Circuit jurisprudence:
A Rule 59(e) motion "calls into question the correctness of a judgment." This Court has held that such a motion is 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." Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.
Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (citations omitted).1 "A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued." Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted).
In his motion for reconsideration, Barnett argues that his claims should not have been dismissed because he suffered injuries and he is falsely imprisoned. Neither of these contentions undermine this Court's conclusion that Morris cannot be liable because he was not aware of the alleged attack. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration [50] is DENIED.2
