United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
A. SANDERS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter comes before the court upon Plaintiff Chaz
Pinkston's motion for reconsideration of the court's
June 7, 2019, order denying Plaintiff's motion for leave
to file and motion for contempt and the court's October
8, 2019, orders denying Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration and motion for leave to file a rebuttal.
Docs. #223, #235, #236.
about March 24, 2017, Chaz Pinkston filed a pro se
complaint challenging the conditions of his confinement
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. #1. On July 25, 2018,
the Court entered an order dismissing Pinkston's claims
against all Defendants except for those asserted against Dr.
Kuiper. Doc. #129.
evidentiary hearing was held on May 23, 2019, to determine
whether Pinkston was involuntarily medicated in violation of
his constitutional rights while housed at the Mississippi
State Penitentiary. See Doc. #215. Pinkston, an
inmate currently housed at Wilkinson County Correctional
Facility, refused to attend the hearing. Defendant Dr.
Kuiper, represented by counsel, appeared, gave testimony, and
entered two exhibits in to evidence. Following the
evidentiary hearing, on June 4, 2019, Pinkston filed motions
for leave to file and for contempt of court. Docs. # 220,
6, 2019, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that judgment be entered in favor of Dr. Kuiper,
and that he be dismissed from this action with prejudice.
Doc. #222. The court denied Pinkston's motion for leave
to file and for contempt of court on June 7, 2019, advising
Pinkston that he could file an objection to the court's
report and recommendation if he was dissatisfied with the
court's conclusion. Doc. #223.
18, 2019, Pinkston filed motions for leave to file and for
reconsideration of the court's order denying his motion
for contempt of court. Docs. # 227, #228. On June 24, 2019,
Pinkston moved for leave to file and simultaneously filed an
objection to the report and recommendation. Docs. # 229, 230.
After Dr. Kuiper filed his response, Pinkston moved for leave
to file a rebuttal in support of his objection. Doc. #233. On
October 8, 2019, the court entered orders granting
Pinkston's motion for leave to file but denying his
motion for reconsideration, and granting Pinkston's
motion for leave to file an objection but denying him leave
to file a rebuttal. Docs. #235, # 236.
October 30, 2019, Pinkston filed a “motion to appeal
court orders to 5th Circuit Federal Court of
Appeals”-in which he seeks to appeal the
court's orders denying his motions for leave to file a
motion for contempt, contempt, reconsideration, and leave to
file a rebuttal- which the court construes as a motion for
reconsideration pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Doc. # 240.
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) “allows parties to seek
reconsideration of interlocutory orders . . . .”
Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th
Cir. 2017). Under Rule 54(b):
[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the
action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised
at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all
the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Although the source of the court's authority to revise or
amend an order or judgment is different for interlocutory
orders than for final orders or judgments, many of the same
policy considerations apply both to motions for
reconsideration under Rule 54(b) and to motions for
reconsideration under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, district
courts . . . frequently apply the same standards to the two.
eTool Dev., Inc. v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp.,
881 F.Supp.2d 745, 748 (E.D. Tex. 2012) ...