Pete v. Doe

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

NORMAN PETE CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 22-2327 C/W NO. 22-3041 JOHN DOE, ET AL. SECTION “R” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration1 of this Court’s Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations and judgment dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against defendants.2 A district court has considerable discretion to grant or to deny a motion for reconsideration. See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir.1993). A court’s reconsideration of an earlier order is an extraordinary remedy, which should be granted sparingly. See Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., No. 97-3170, 1998 WL 43217, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 1998), aff’d, 182 F.3d 353 (5th Cir.1999); Bardwell v. George G. Sharp, Inc., Nos. 93-3590, 93-3591, 1995 WL 517120, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 30, 1995). The Court must “strike the proper balance” between the need for finality and “the need to render just decisions on

1 R. Doc. 12. 2 R. Docs. 10 & 11. the basis of all the facts.” Edward H. Bohlin Co., 6 F.3d at 355. To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, a party must “clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence.” Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting Pioneer Natural Res. USA, Inc. v. Paper, Allied Indus., Chem. & Energy Workers Intl Union Local 4-487, 328 F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir. 2003)). The Court finds that plaintiffs motion for reconsideration has not established either a manifest error of law or presented newly discovered evidence in support of reconsidering this Court’s prior Order and Judgment. Instead, plaintiffs motion consists of several excerpts from Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996),3 a case which plaintiff cited in both his original complaint4 and objections to the Report and Recommendations.5 The Court has already considered plaintiff's arguments under Casey in its Order adopting the Report and Recommendations.® Without pointing to any manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence, plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _7th _ day of August, 2023. _dernk Vever SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 R. Doc. 12. 4 R. Doc. 3. 5 R. Doc. 8. 6 R. Doc. 10.