Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roberson v. Rowlett Police Department

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

January 30, 2019

BILLY JOHN ROBERSON, Plaintiff,
v.
ROWLETT POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

          IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         By Special Order 3-251, this case has been automatically referred for findings, conclusions, and recommendation. Before the Court is the plaintiff's Response to Motion of Dismissal, received on January 22, 2019 (doc. 19). Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the filing should be construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On September 24, 2018, Billy John Roberson (Plaintiff) filed this lawsuit against the City of Rowlett, the Rowlett Police Department, and the Chief of Police in his official capacity based on a 2005 conviction and sentence in Cause No. F03-45525 in Dallas County, Texas, for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. (See doc. 3 at 4;[1] doc. 8 at 1-9, 14.) He alleged that he was falsely arrested on December 11, 2003, and there was insufficient evidence to support his arrest and the conviction. (See doc. 8 at 1-9.) On January 14, 2019, the habeas claims were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and the remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) until he satisfied the conditions in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (See docs. 17, 18.)

         On January 22, 2019, he filed his “response” to the dismissal. (See doc. 19.)

         II. FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e)

         Plaintiff's “response” challenges the judgment in this case and was filed within 28 days of its entry, so it is properly construed as a motion arising under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291, 303 & n. 10 (5th Cir. 2010) (“When a litigant files a motion seeking a change in judgment, courts typically determine the appropriate motion based on whether the litigant filed the motion within Rule 59(e)'s time limit.”).

         To prevail on a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), the moving party must show (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a manifest error of law or fact. See Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). A Rule 59(e) 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.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004). Although courts have “considerable discretion” to grant or to deny a Rule 59(e) motion, they use the “extraordinary remedy” under Rule 59(e) “sparingly.” Id. at 479, 483. When considering a motion to alter or amend judgment, “[t]he court must strike the proper balance between two competing imperatives: (1) finality, and (2) the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts.” Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993).

         Plaintiff reiterates his claims and again challenges a criminal conviction with habeas claims. (See doc. 19.) As noted, a Rule 59(e) motion is “not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 479. He does not allege new evidence or a change in the law, and he has not demonstrated a manifest error of law or fact. He has not shown a basis for relief under Rule 59(e).

         III. RECOMMENDATION

         Petitioner's motion (doc. 19) should be construed as a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and DENIED.

         INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

         A copy of these findings conclusions and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law Any party who objects to any part of these findings conclusions and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy See 28 USC ยง 636(b)(1); Fed R Civ P 72(b) In order to be specific an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made state the basis for the objection and specify the place in the magistrate judge's findings conclusion and recommendation where the disputed determination is found An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.