Cedric Greene v. Pacific Shore Property Management, et al.

W.D. Missouri

Cedric Greene v. Pacific Shore Property Management, et al.

DecidedNovember 5, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00728

StatusUnknown

This text of Cedric Greene v. Pacific Shore Property Management, et al. (Cedric Greene v. Pacific Shore Property Management, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cedric Greene v. Pacific Shore Property Management, et al., (W.D. Mo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

CEDRIC GREENE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:25-CV-00728–DGK ) ) ) PACIFIC SHORE PROPERTY ) MANAGEMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND

On October 22, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s pro se motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, struck co-Plaintiff Valerie Stephen, and dismissed the case. ECF No. 12. Though the Court found Plaintiff was qualified to proceed in forma pauperis by economic status, the Court found that the case was malicious, that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that venue was improper. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend that order. To the extent this Court retains jurisdiction in this matter, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. A motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) serves the limited purpose of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or presenting newly discovered evidence. Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988). Rule 59(e) motions “cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.” Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998). Nor is it appropriate to use Rule 59(e) to repeat arguments, In re G.M. Corp. Anti-Lock Brake Prods. Liab. Lit., 174 F.R.D. 444, 446 (E.D. Mo. 1997), or “‘relitigate old matters.’” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008) (quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)). After carefully reviewing Plaintiffs’ briefing, the Court finds no manifest errors of law.

The “new” elements supporting Plaintiff’s motion are not newly discovered evidence but are rather evidence, theories, or arguments that were available to Plaintiff when this Court ruled on his motion. Nothing presented in the present motion entitles Plaintiff to relief under Rule 59(e). Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: November 5, 2025 /s/ Greg Kays GREG KAYS, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

CEDRIC GREENE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:25-CV-00728–DGK ) ) ) PACIFIC SHORE PROPERTY ) MANAGEMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND

On October 22, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s pro se motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, struck co-Plaintiff Valerie Stephen, and dismissed the case. ECF No. 12. Though the Court found Plaintiff was qualified to proceed in forma pauperis by economic status, the Court found that the case was malicious, that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that venue was improper. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend that order. To the extent this Court retains jurisdiction in this matter, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. A motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) serves the limited purpose of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or presenting newly discovered evidence. Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988). Rule 59(e) motions “cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.” Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998). Nor is it appropriate to use Rule 59(e) to repeat arguments, In re G.M. Corp. Anti-Lock Brake Prods. Liab. Lit., 174 F.R.D. 444, 446 (E.D. Mo. 1997), or “‘relitigate old matters.’” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008) (quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)). After carefully reviewing Plaintiffs’ briefing, the Court finds no manifest errors of law.

The “new” elements supporting Plaintiff’s motion are not newly discovered evidence but are rather evidence, theories, or arguments that were available to Plaintiff when this Court ruled on his motion. Nothing presented in the present motion entitles Plaintiff to relief under Rule 59(e). Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: November 5, 2025 /s/ Greg Kays GREG KAYS, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cedric Greene v. Pacific Shore Property Management, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cedric-greene-v-pacific-shore-property-management-et-al-mowd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack