Young v. Ivey

S.D. Alabama

Young v. Ivey

DecidedApril 21, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-01114

StatusUnknown

This text of Young v. Ivey (Young v. Ivey) 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

Young v. Ivey, (S.D. Ala. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

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

JOHNNY M. YOUNG, # 090679, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Civil Action No. 19-01114-KD-N ) GOVERNOR KAY IVEY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiff Johnny M. Young (doc. 16). Young moves the Court to grant reconsideration of the order dismissing his complaint without prejudice as malicious and reinstate this action. Young argues that his complaint was brought pursuant to “the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 18 U.S.C. § 3626” and should have been analyzed under that statute (doc. 16, p. 3). He argues that the Magistrate Judge erroneously treated his complaint as brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “A timely motion for reconsideration regarding the substantive merits of a judgment ordinarily will be deemed a motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) regardless of how the party filing the motion characterizes it.” State Auto Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Jacobs, 791 Fed. Appx. 28, 33 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Finch v. City of Vernon, 845 F.2d 256, 258–59 (11th Cir. 1988)). “The only grounds for granting a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) are ‘newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.’” Id. at p. 33 (quoting Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)). “A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised before the entry of judgment.” Id. Young argues that the Court committed an error of law by analyzing his complaint under the wrong statute. Although Young asserts that his complaint was brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (and not § 1983), such is not possible. Section 3626 addresses the remedies available when a successful § 1983 claim has been prosecuted. Section 3626 does not provide a cause of action. Accordingly, Young’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of April 2020.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose KRISTI K. DuBOSE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

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

JOHNNY M. YOUNG, # 090679, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Civil Action No. 19-01114-KD-N ) GOVERNOR KAY IVEY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiff Johnny M. Young (doc. 16). Young moves the Court to grant reconsideration of the order dismissing his complaint without prejudice as malicious and reinstate this action. Young argues that his complaint was brought pursuant to “the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 18 U.S.C. § 3626” and should have been analyzed under that statute (doc. 16, p. 3). He argues that the Magistrate Judge erroneously treated his complaint as brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “A timely motion for reconsideration regarding the substantive merits of a judgment ordinarily will be deemed a motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) regardless of how the party filing the motion characterizes it.” State Auto Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Jacobs, 791 Fed. Appx. 28, 33 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Finch v. City of Vernon, 845 F.2d 256, 258–59 (11th Cir. 1988)). “The only grounds for granting a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) are ‘newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.’” Id. at p. 33 (quoting Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)). “A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised before the entry of judgment.” Id. Young argues that the Court committed an error of law by analyzing his complaint under the wrong statute. Although Young asserts that his complaint was brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (and not § 1983), such is not possible. Section 3626 addresses the remedies available when a successful § 1983 claim has been prosecuted. Section 3626 does not provide a cause of action. Accordingly, Young’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of April 2020.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose KRISTI K. DuBOSE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Young v. Ivey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-ivey-alsd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack