Montgomery v. Looney

S.D. Alabama

Montgomery v. Looney

DecidedAugust 1, 2025

Docket1:23-cv-00131

StatusUnknown

This text of Montgomery v. Looney (Montgomery v. Looney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Montgomery v. Looney, (S.D. Ala. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

LUTHER STEVEN MONTGOMERY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 1:23-cv-131-TFM-B ) DARLENE LOONEY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court are two untitled documents submitted by Plaintiff which relate to the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on January 10, 2025. See Docs. 59, 60. The documents appear to be identical except that the one docketed second has an attachment. Having reviewed both documents, the Court CONSTRUES them as motions for reconsideration of the Opinion. Plaintiff asks the Court not to dismiss his case against Kevin Nelson, Daniel Lawrence, and the City of Mobile arguing that he did serve all three defendants. Having reviewed the motion, the Court finds that no response is necessary prior to the issuance of this opinion. For the reasons discussed below, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Where no judgment has been entered, there is no judgment to alter or amend. See Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000) (an interlocutory order is not subject to the limitations of Rule 59); Nicholson v. City of Daphne, Civ. Act. No. 1:07-cv-496- WS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57434, 2009 WL 2045152 (S.D. Ala. July 7, 2009) (order granting in part and denying in part motion for summary judgment not subject to Rule 59 or Rule 60). Rather, the arguments are more properly considered as a motion for reconsideration for which its resolution is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. Sabatier v. Sun Trust Bank, 301 F. App’x 913, 914 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court, in its discretion, can modify or vacate non-final orders at any point before final judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b); John Simmons Co. v. Grier Brothers Co., 258 U.S. 82, 88 (1922) (because the order was interlocutory, “the court at any time before final decree [could] modify or rescind it.”); Bon Air Hotel, Inc. v. Time, Inc., 426 F.2d 858, 862 (5th Cir. 1970) (quoting John Simmons).1

“In the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources, reconsideration of an order is an extraordinary remedy and is employed sparingly.” Gougler v. Sirius Products, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1189 (S.D. Ala. 2005) (citations omitted); United States v. Bailey, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1267 (M.D. Fla. 2003), aff’d 419 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005). “Likewise, motions to reconsider are not a platform to relitigate arguments previously considered and rejected.” Gougler, 370 F. Supp. 2d at 1189 n. 1 (citations omitted); see also Spellman v. Haley, Civ. Act. No. 97-640-N, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27308, 2002 WL 866837, *2 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 22, 2002) (“litigants should not use motions to reconsider as a knee-jerk reaction to an adverse ruling”).

In short, “[a] motion to reconsider is only available when a party presents the court with evidence of an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Gipson v. Mattox, 511 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1185 (S.D. Ala. 2007) (internal quotes omitted); see also Summit Medical Center of Alabama, Inc. v. Riley, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1355 (M.D. Ala. 2003) (stating same) Even reviewing under this standard, it is clear that Plaintiff is merely unhappy with the dismissal of the defendants at issue and seek to relitigate what this Court has already seen and

1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, Alabama, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. rejected. He provides the Court with nothing to show the original determination was in error. Therefore, the motions for reconsideration (Docs. 59, 60) are both DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2025. /s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

LUTHER STEVEN MONTGOMERY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 1:23-cv-131-TFM-B ) DARLENE LOONEY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court are two untitled documents submitted by Plaintiff which relate to the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on January 10, 2025. See Docs. 59, 60. The documents appear to be identical except that the one docketed second has an attachment. Having reviewed both documents, the Court CONSTRUES them as motions for reconsideration of the Opinion. Plaintiff asks the Court not to dismiss his case against Kevin Nelson, Daniel Lawrence, and the City of Mobile arguing that he did serve all three defendants. Having reviewed the motion, the Court finds that no response is necessary prior to the issuance of this opinion. For the reasons discussed below, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Where no judgment has been entered, there is no judgment to alter or amend. See Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000) (an interlocutory order is not subject to the limitations of Rule 59); Nicholson v. City of Daphne, Civ. Act. No. 1:07-cv-496- WS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57434, 2009 WL 2045152 (S.D. Ala. July 7, 2009) (order granting in part and denying in part motion for summary judgment not subject to Rule 59 or Rule 60). Rather, the arguments are more properly considered as a motion for reconsideration for which its resolution is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. Sabatier v. Sun Trust Bank, 301 F. App’x 913, 914 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court, in its discretion, can modify or vacate non-final orders at any point before final judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b); John Simmons Co. v. Grier Brothers Co., 258 U.S. 82, 88 (1922) (because the order was interlocutory, “the court at any time before final decree [could] modify or rescind it.”); Bon Air Hotel, Inc. v. Time, Inc., 426 F.2d 858, 862 (5th Cir. 1970) (quoting John Simmons).1

“In the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources, reconsideration of an order is an extraordinary remedy and is employed sparingly.” Gougler v. Sirius Products, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1189 (S.D. Ala. 2005) (citations omitted); United States v. Bailey, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1267 (M.D. Fla. 2003), aff’d 419 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005). “Likewise, motions to reconsider are not a platform to relitigate arguments previously considered and rejected.” Gougler, 370 F. Supp. 2d at 1189 n. 1 (citations omitted); see also Spellman v. Haley, Civ. Act. No. 97-640-N, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27308, 2002 WL 866837, *2 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 22, 2002) (“litigants should not use motions to reconsider as a knee-jerk reaction to an adverse ruling”).

In short, “[a] motion to reconsider is only available when a party presents the court with evidence of an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Gipson v. Mattox, 511 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1185 (S.D. Ala. 2007) (internal quotes omitted); see also Summit Medical Center of Alabama, Inc. v. Riley, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1355 (M.D. Ala. 2003) (stating same) Even reviewing under this standard, it is clear that Plaintiff is merely unhappy with the dismissal of the defendants at issue and seek to relitigate what this Court has already seen and

1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, Alabama, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. rejected. He provides the Court with nothing to show the original determination was in error. Therefore, the motions for reconsideration (Docs. 59, 60) are both DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2025. /s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Montgomery v. Looney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-v-looney-alsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack