Ressev.Orleans Parish School Board

United States District Court, E.D. LouisianaFeb 12, 2004
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-1660, SECTION "T"(2) (E.D. La. Feb. 12, 2004)


February 12, 2004


G. PORTEOUS, District Judge

Before the Court is a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Denying Defendant, Orleans Parish School Board's, ("OPSB"), Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed on behalf of the Defendants (Doc. 27). The matter was taken under submission on

February 11, 2004. The Court, having considered the arguments of the parties, the Court record, the law and applicable jurisprudence, is fully advised in the premises and ready to rule.


On June 11, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Orleans Parish School Board alleging that OPSB wrongfully terminated him in violation of his due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. On August 27, 2003, OPSB filed its Original Answers to plaintiff's Complaint. Included in that answer was the OPSB's first defense, which stated, "plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." On November 19, 2003, in an effort to cure the defects of the allegations contained in his Complaint, Plaintiff, Roger Reese, ("Reese"), filed a First Supplemental and Amending Complaint alleging a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On January 14, 2004, this Court ruled that the plaintiff's original Complaint and First Supplemental and Amending Complaint provided the factual basis that would entitle the Plaintiff to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was denied.

On January 25, 2004, the Defendants filed the instant Motion to Alter or Amending Judgment Denying the Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rule 59(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In support of their motion, Defendants reassert their arguments in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.


A. Standard for Reconsideration

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that any party may file a motion to alter or amend a judgment within ten business days after its entry. See FED. R. Civ. P. 59. Under Rule 59, a district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying such a motion. Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990);First Commonweatlh Corp. v. Hibernia Nat. Bank of New Orleans. 891 F. Supp. 290(E.D.La. 1995), amended 896 F. Supp. 634, affirmed 85 F.3d 622. There are certain grounds upon which a Court may grant a Rule 59 motion for reconsideration or to alter or amend the judgment. These grounds include the following: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law has occurred, (2) evidence not previously available becomes available, or (3) it is necessary to correct clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Advertising Pub. Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216 (D.N.J. 1993). It is important to note that reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly and should not be used to relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Lafargue v. Jefferson Parish, No. 98-3185, 2000 WL 174899, *1 (E.D.L.A. Feb. 11, 2000).

B. Analysis of the Court

In the instant case, assuming all factual allegations of the plaintiff's original Complaint and plaintiff's First Supplemental and Amending Complaint to be true, Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendant, OPSB, may be liable until Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a deprivation and violation of Plaintiff's rights protected by the Constitution, federal laws, state laws, and the "official policy" of Defendant, OPSB. Webster v. City of Houston, 735 F.2d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc).

The Orleans Parish School Board has not successfully pleaded any of the requirements necessary under F.R.C.P. Rule 59(e) and has used this Motion as an attempt to relitigate issues previously decided by this Court. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that none of the OPSB's arguments fall within any of the circumstances set forth above that justify reconsideration. They have failed to show any changes in the factual circumstances or controlling law to support the notion that this Court's Order of January' 14, 2004 was erroneous. Furthermore, OPSB has failed to prove that this Court's prior Order contained a clear error of law warranting reconsideration. Finally, the plaintiff's failed to show that a failure to reconsider the Order of January 14, 2004 would be an injustice to either parties.


IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Alter or Amend this Court's January 14, 2004 Order filed on behalf of the Defendants, Orleans Parish School Board (Doc. 27) be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.