United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
M. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pro se prisoner action is before the Court on Leroy
Barnett's motion for reconsideration. Doc. #50.
September 14, 2015, Leroy Barnett, an inmate in Unit 29 at
the Mississippi State Penitentiary, filed a
“Prisoner's Complaint Challenging Conditions of
Confinement” against: (1) Marshall Fisher, the
Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections;
(2) Earnest Lee, the Superintendent of the Mississippi State
Penitentiary; and (3) Timothy Morris, the “Warden over
Unit 29.” Doc. #1. Barnett's complaint alleged that
he suffered injuries from the use of unlawful force during a
“shakedown” of Unit 29. Id. at 4-5.
January 28, 2016, Barnett appeared before United States
Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden for a Spears
hearing. Doc. #12. At the Spears hearing, Barnett
clarified that he was asserting three claims - an excessive
force claim arising from the shakedown, a denial of medical
treatment claim based on the prison's response to
injuries Barnett suffered during the shakedown, and a
separate allegation that “various Mississippi
Department of Corrections personnel … retaliated
against him because he has sought state post-conviction
collateral relief to overturn his convictions for murder and
aggravated assault - and also because he has drafted
pleadings for other inmates during his time in prison.”
Doc. #14 at 2.
days later, on February 1, 2016, Judge Virden issued a Report
and Recommendation recommending that the claims
“against Marshall Fisher and Earnest Lee should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. However, his claim
against Warden Timothy Morris for failure to protect him from
use of excessive force by the personnel conducting the
shakedown [should] proceed.” Id. at 7. Barnett
did not object to the Report and Recommendation within the
time allowed. On May 27, 2016, this Court entered an order
adopting the Report and Recommendation as the order of the
Court. Doc. #21.
September 29, 2016, Morris filed a motion for summary
judgment. Doc. #34. Barnett did not respond to the motion for
summary judgment but, on October 25, 2016, filed a motion
seeking to transfer this case to the Oxford Division of this
Court. Doc. #39. Six days later, on October 31, 2016, Barnett
filed his own motion for summary judgment. Doc. #42. Morris
did not respond to Barnett's motion.
November 17, 2016, Judge Virden denied Barnett's motion
to transfer. Doc. #43. On December 2, 2016, Barnett filed a
motion seeking reconsideration of the denial. Doc. #45.
23, 2017, this Court granted Morris' motion for summary
judgment on the ground that there was no evidence Morris had
knowledge of the alleged attack. Doc. #48. Accordingly, the
Court dismissed the action with prejudice. Doc. #49. On or
about June 10, 2017, Barnett filed the instant motion for
reconsideration. Doc. #50.
Fifth Circuit jurisprudence:
A Rule 59(e) motion “calls into question the
correctness of a judgment.” This Court has held that
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. 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.” ...