The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
HEATH A. MATHERNE CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO: 18-3396
STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH SECTION: T (3)
THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES, GENECIA
HILL, AND LAFOURCHE PARISH
SCHOOL BOARD
ORDER
Before the Court is Heath A. Matherne’s Motion to Reconsider (R. Doc. 61) the Court’s
Order1 granting the Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service by Defendant State of Louisiana
through the Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”).2 For the following reasons,
the Motion to Reconsider (R. Doc. 61) filed by Heath A. Matherne (“Plaintiff”) is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This matter arises out of Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against the State of Louisiana through the Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”).
In February 2018, Plaintiff filed suit in the 17th Judicial District Court against DCFS alleging
DCFS violated his constitutional rights by taking Plaintiff’s minor daughter from school due to
allegations of child abuse without first notifying Plaintiff.3 Plaintiff’s complaint requested service
on DCFS through, “Office of the Secretary James M. Le Blanc 504 Mayflower St, Baton Rouge,
1 R. Doc. 59.
2 R. Doc. 22.
3 R. Doc. 1-2.
LA.”4 On March 29, 2018, defendant Genecia Hill removed the case to the Eastern District of
Louisiana.5 On April 4, 2018, defendant Hill filed a Notice of Compliance attaching copies of the
state court filings.6 The citation for DCFS indicates DCFS was served through the Secretary James
M. LeBlanc on March 6, 2018.7
On December 19, 2018, DCFS moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint against DCFS for
improper service.8 Plaintiff did not file any opposition to DCFS’s motion to dismiss. On January
30, 2020, the Court granted DCFS’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service because the record
reflects Plaintiff requested and effected service on James LeBlanc, the Secretary of the Department
of Public Safety and Corrections (“DPSC”).9 LeBlanc is the head of DPSC, not the chief executive
officer of DCFS.10
On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider and attached a citation showing
personal service was made on DCFS through its secretary, Marketa Garner Walters, 627 N. Fourth
Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802 on March 23, 2018.11 On April 2, 2018, after defendant Genecia
Hill had removed this case to the Eastern District of Louisiana, Plaintiff filed a return showing
service on DCFS through its secretary with the 17th Judicial District Court. Although this suit was
filed in February 2018 and removed in March 2018, Plaintiff failed to file any evidence of service
on DCFS into this Court’s records until February 7, 2020, after this Court granted DCFS’s motion
to dismiss for insufficient service.
4 R. Doc. 1-2.
5 R. Doc. 1.
6 R. Doc. 6.
7 R. Doc. 6-2.
8 R. Doc. 22.
9 R. Doc. 1-2, p.5.
10 R. Doc. 22-1, p.2.
11 R. Doc. 61-2.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) allows parties to seek reconsideration of
interlocutory orders and authorizes a district court to revise any order at any time before the entry
of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.12 Under Rule
54(b), the Court is “free to reconsider and reverse its decision for any reason it deems sufficient,
even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of the substantive
law.”13 A motion for reconsideration “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.”14 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 [the order].’”15 Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary
remedy that should be used sparingly.16
In this case, the Plaintiff had ample opportunity to offer evidence showing that DCFS was
properly served through its secretary, Marketa Garner Walters. The return attached to Plaintiff’s
February 7, 2020 motion for reconsideration shows that service was effectuated on March 23,
2018.17 Plaintiff had nearly two years to file this evidence into this Court’s records but failed to do
so. Additionally, Plaintiff had ample opportunity to file an opposition memorandum to DCFS’s
motion to dismiss for insufficient service, which was filed on December 22, 2018 and decided on
January 30, 2020. Plaintiff neglected to file any opposition to DCFS’s motion to dismiss.
12 See Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th Cir. 2017).
13 Id.
14 Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted).
15 Lacoste v. Pilgrim Int'l, 2009 WL 1565940, at *8 (E.D. La. June 3, 2009).
16 Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
17 R. Doc. 61-2.
Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to establish a manifest error of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence sufficient to support Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider
(R. Doc. 61) filed by Heath A. Matherne is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, on this 27th day of March, 2020.
Ghee GERARD GUIDRY ~ |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE