Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 20-00158-BAJ-SDJ
06-17-2020
ANDRE JOHNSON v. NICHOLAS SANDERS
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Reconsideration (Doc. 5). Plaintiff requests the Court to reconsider its Ruling and Order (Doc. 3) denying Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff's motion was denied because he failed to satisfactorily allege a substantial threat of irreparable injury. In the instant motion, Plaintiff attempts to establish a substantial threat of irreparable injury by pointing to a timeline of events dating from October 2018 to January 2020 and suggesting that officers shouted insults at him when he sleeps, causing him to suffer sleep deprivation.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a court is permitted to alter or amend a judgment. However, "such a 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." Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990). Rather, Rule 59(e) "serve[s] the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal quotations omitted). Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. Clancy v. Employers Health Ins. Co., 101 F.Supp.2d 463, 465 (E.D. La. 2000).
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege a basis on which the Court should reconsider the judgment. In the instant motion, Plaintiff still has failed to point to evidence satisfying the elements for injunctive relief. See PCI Transp., Inc. v. Fort Worth & Western R. Co., 418 F.3d 535, 545 (5th Cir. 2005). Also, Plaintiff now raises arguments that could have been offered or raised in his motion for preliminary injunction. Because Plaintiff has failed to allege a manifest error of law, fact, or point to newly discovered evidence, the Court must deny Plaintiff's motion.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 5) is DENIED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 17th day of June, 2020
/s/ _________
JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA