Morgan v. Connick ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JEROME MORGAN CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER: 17-5319 LEON CANNIZZARO, ET AL. SECTION: “H”(5) ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Jerome Morgan’s Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s September 8 Order Awarding Civil Pro Bono Costs. (Rec. doc. 165). On September 8, 2022, this Court awarded $2,500.00 in costs to court-appointed counsel. (Rec. doc. 164). Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider an award of $6,800.00 for the cost of his expert, Dr. Stan Veuger. The FederBaal ssR vu.l eUs.S .o Df epC'itv oilf APgroricce.dure do not expressly recognize motions for reconsideration. , 211 F.3d 959, 962 (5th Cir. 2000). The question oSef nwtrhyic She plercotc Iendsu. rCaol. rvu. lHe o–m Reu Sleta 5t9e Cotry 6. 0M –u ta. pInpsli. eCso d.epends on the timing of such a motion. , 582 F. App'x 284, 286 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). A motion for reconsideration filed within 28 days of the court judgment being challenged is characterizedS eaes ida. motion to alter or amend the judgment and construed pursuant to Rule 59(e). A motion for reconsideration filed more thSaene 2id8. days after the judgment is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. Plaintiff filed this motion within 28 days of the entry of final judgment. Accordingly, a Rule 59(e) analysis is appropriate. Allen v.A E mnvoitrioognr peeunr sLuaanndt stcoa Rpeu leP r5o9fe(ess)i o“cnaalllss, iInntco. question the correctness of a judgment.” , 721 F. App'x 322, 328 (5th Cir. 2017) Templet v. HmyadnriofeCshte mer rInocr.s of law or fact or to present newly discoWvearletdm aenv ivd. eInntc'el .P’”a p er Co. , 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting , 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989)). Thus, “[a] motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence and cannot be used tIon rraeis eL iafer gPuamrtennetrss w Hhoicldhi ncgosu, ldIn, ac.nd should, have been made before the judgment issued.” , 926 F.3d 103, 128 (5th Cir. 2019) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “Reconsideration of a juKdogemrneenrt avf.t eCrM itRs eCnotnrsyt ruisc tiaonn &e xRtoroafoinrdgi,n La.Lry.C .remedy that should be used sparingly.” Templet see also Nucor Stee, l9 L1a0. ,F L.3.Ld. C2. 2v1. , H22D6I (G5ltohb .C Iirn.s 2. 0C1o8. ) (quoting , 367 F.3d at 479); , No. CV 21-1904, 2022 WL 4127161, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 9, 2022) (same). In its original order, this Court stated: Plaintiff’s counsel recognizes that the April 22, 2014 Resolution of the En Banc Court that established the Civil Pro Bono Counsel Panel also established a $2,500 per case limit on reimbursable costs. The Court finds the plaintiff’s proof to be in order and therefore finds that counsel is entitled to be awarded $2,500.00 in costs. (Rec. doc. 164). Plaintiff points out, however, as he also stated in his earlier motion: In Paragraph 5(d), the resolution provides for reimbursement of “reasonable fees of expert witnesses . . . upon motion and order of the Court,” so long as the requesting party sought “prior approval of the Magistrate Judge.” Here, Morgan sought and obtained this Court’s approval to retain two experts at $200/hour. In his request for reimbursement, Morgan sought reimbursement of $6,800 (34 hours x $200/hour) for the time of only one expert, Dr. Stan Veuger. (Rec. doc. 165 (citing Resolution of the En Banc Court: Civil Pro Bono Counsel Panel ¶ 5(d)). Plaintiff sought prior approval of his experts and their fees from this Court. (Rec. docs. 146, 149). This Court approved the experts and their rates. (Rec. docs. 148, 151). Because Plaintiff sought prior approval of his experts and their fees, and this Court approvIeTd ItSh eOmR,D PElaRinEtDif f has carried his burden to alter the Court’s original judgment. that Plaintiff Jerome Morgan’s Ex Parte Motion for ReconGsRidAeNraTtEioDn of Court’s September 8 Order Awarding Civil Pro Bono Costs (Rec. doc. 165) is , and Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded a further $6,800.00 from the civil pro bono fund for the cost of his expert, Dr. Stan Veuger. 27th October New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of , 2022. MICHAEL B. NORTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE