Lawrence v. Lawson ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHAWNDRIKA LAWRENCE, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff VERSUS NO. 22-3040 ARTHUR LAWSON, ET AL., SECTION: “E” Defendants ORDER Before the Court is a motion for reconsideration1 filed by Plaintiff Shawndrika Lawrence (“Plaintiff”). For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its prior Order2 denying as moot Plaintiff’s motion to order the Clerk of Court to serve.3 A motion for reconsideration that is filed within twenty-eight days of entry of an order is considered a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.4 Motions for reconsideration must “clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence.”5 A district court may grant a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) only due to “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct 1 R. Doc. 15. 2 R. Doc. 13. The Court clarified with Plaintiff that the relief she sought through this motion was for the Clerk’s Office to issue summons to all named Defendants. The Clerk’s Office did so on December 6, 2022. R. Doc. 14. 3 R. Doc. 15. 4 Waites v. Lee Cnty., Miss., 498 F. App’x 401, 403-04 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2012) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291, 303 n.7 (5th Cir. 2010); Halicki v. La. Casino Cruises, Inc., 151 F.3d 465, 470 (5th Cir. 1998); Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 483 (5th Cir. 2004)). Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was filed one day after this Court’s Order denying as moot Plaintiff’s motion. R. Doc. 13 (this Court’s Order, filed on December 5, 2022); R. Doc. 15 (Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on December 6, 2022). 5 Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)). a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Plaintiff has failed to identify any grounds upon which the motion should be reconsidered. Moreover, the relief Plaintiff sought in her previous motion—and again in the present motion—has been provided to her, as the Clerk’s Office issued summons to all named Defendants on December 6, 2022.7 IT IS ORDERED that the motion’ is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 13th day of December, 2022. SUSIE ORCA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 Arrieta v. Local 745 of Intl. Broth. of Teamsters, 445 F. App’x 760, 762 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2011) (citing In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002)). 7R. Doe. 14. 8R. Doc. 15.