Filed: Jul. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 01, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NANCY F. ATLAS , District Judge . Plaintiff Isaac Jackson, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint [Doc. #1] on July 15, 2015, seeking judicial review of the denial of Social Security benefits by Defendant, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. On June 9, 2016, the Court dismissed the case as time-barred. Memorandum and Order [Doc. # 12]; Final Dismissal Order [Doc. # 13]. On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. # 15]. Havi
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NANCY F. ATLAS , District Judge . Plaintiff Isaac Jackson, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint [Doc. #1] on July 15, 2015, seeking judicial review of the denial of Social Security benefits by Defendant, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. On June 9, 2016, the Court dismissed the case as time-barred. Memorandum and Order [Doc. # 12]; Final Dismissal Order [Doc. # 13]. On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. # 15]. Havin..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NANCY F. ATLAS, District Judge.
Plaintiff Isaac Jackson, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint [Doc. #1] on July 15, 2015, seeking judicial review of the denial of Social Security benefits by Defendant, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. On June 9, 2016, the Court dismissed the case as time-barred. Memorandum and Order [Doc. # 12]; Final Dismissal Order [Doc. # 13]. On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. # 15]. Having considered the motion and all matters of record, the Court concludes that the Motion for Reconsideration should be denied.1
Although Plaintiff's Motion does not cite particular authority for reconsideration, the Court will analyze his motion under the standards of Federal Rule of Procedure 59(e) because he filed the Motion within twenty-eight days of judgment.2 Rule 59(e) permits a litigant to file a motion to "alter or amend a judgment." FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). Reconsideration of a judgment is an "extraordinary remedy" that should be used "sparingly," and Rule 59(e) serves a "narrow purpose" of allowing a party to bring manifest errors or newly discovered evidence to the Court's attention. Templet v. Hydrochem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004). See Balakrishnan v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. & Agr. & Mech. Coll., 452 F. App'x 495, 499 (5th Cir. 2011). A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to argue a case under a new legal theory. Balakrishnan, 452 F. App'x at 499 (citing Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005)). Also, a Rule 59 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." Templet, 367 F.3d at 479. See Knight v. Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., 333 F. App'x 1, 8 (5th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff's Motion does not raise any fact or legal theory that merits reconsideration under Rule 59. This Court's previous opinion held that Plaintiff's claim is time-barred under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This Court lacks the power to decide this dispute, as the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). Plaintiff's Motion identifies no newly discovered evidence or error that establishes a manifest error of law or fact in the Court's previous ruling. Plaintiff's Motion therefore will be denied.3
Finally, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 14] is moot, because it was filed after the Court entered its Final Dismissal Order [Doc. # 13] denying all of Plaintiff's claims.
For all of the forgoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement is DENIED as moot.
