United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are Levonzel Anderson's motion for
reconsideration regarding the Court's September 29, 2017,
order dismissing this action, and his motion for
reconsideration regarding the Court's September 27, 2017,
order denying injunctive relief. Doc. #124; Doc. #128.
about May 20, 2016, Levonzel Anderson filed a pro se prisoner
complaint against numerous employees of the Mississippi State
Penitentiary and the Mississippi Parole Boardalleging (1) that
the parole board set off his parole two years; (2) denial of
due process regarding rule violations; (3) denial of access
to the court; (4) failure to protect; (5) retaliation; (6)
loss of property; and (7) unsanitary conditions of
confinement. Doc. #1. On September 27, 2016, United
States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden held a Spears
hearing on Anderson's allegations. Doc. #18.
about November 4, 2016, Anderson filed a “Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint” seeking to add,
among other things, allegations involving incidents of rape
that occurred while he was sleeping in support of his failure
to protect claim. Doc. #31. Judge Virden, treating the motion
as a motion for preliminary injunction seeking protection
from the alleged rape incidents,  held a hearing on the motion
on December 9, 2016. See Doc. #38; Doc. #47; Doc.
February 27, 2017, Angela Brown filed a motion for summary
judgment addressing Anderson's failure to protect claim.
Doc. #62. On March 7, 2017, other defendants filed a
“Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Sovereign and
Qualified Immunity.” Doc. #68. On or about April 6,
2017, Anderson filed “Plaintiffs' [sic] Response to
Angela Browns' [sic] Motion for Summary Judgment.”
April 28, 2017, Judge Virden issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Anderson's motion for
preliminary injunction be denied because he failed to
demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits. Doc. #81. Anderson acknowledged receipt of the April
28, 2017, Report and Recommendation on May 7, 2017. Doc. #87.
On or about June 2, 2017, Anderson filed a document
captioned, “Plaintiffs Objections to United
States Magistrate Judge Report and Recommendations on
Preliminary Injunction.” Doc. #88.
18, 2017, Judge Virden issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the motions for summary judgment be granted
and that Anderson's remaining claims be dismissed, sua
sponte, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Doc. #100. Anderson acknowledged receipt of the July
18, 2017, Report and Recommendation on July 19, 2017. Doc.
#101. On or about August 3, 2017, Anderson filed a
“Motion to Show Cause for an [sic] Preliminary
Injunction” which, although unclear, appeared to be
objections to the July 18, 2017, Report and
Recommendation. Doc. #104.
September 27, 2017, the Court adopted the April 28, 2017,
Report and Recommendation and denied Anderson's motion
for preliminary injunction. Doc. #120. Two days later, on
September 29, 2017, the Court adopted the July 18, 2017,
Report and Recommendation and entered a final judgment
dismissing this action. Doc. #121; Doc. #122.
about October 18, 2017, Anderson filed a motion seeking
reconsideration of the Court's September 29, 2017,
judgment dismissing this action. Doc. #124. On or about
November 7, 2017, Anderson filed “Plaintiffs Second
Motion to Alter - or Amend the Judgment of Dismissed
Preliminary Injunction, Order To - Show Cause, Acknowledgment
- of - Receipt [A]ttached - Affidavit, ” which
the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of the
Court's September 27, 2017, order denying the preliminary
injunction motion. Doc. #128.
Motion for Reconsideration
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.” Reconsideration of a judgment
after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be
Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79
(5th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (citations
omitted). “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 to raise arguments
which could, and should, have been made before the judgment
issued.” Schiller v. ...