The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DODIYI J. WILLIAMWEST CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 21-800
SHERRY RICHARDSON, ET AL. SECTION “R” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff Dodiyi J. Williamwest’s motion for a new
trial.1 Defendants Sargent Blanchard, Mitch Landrieu, and the City of New
Orleans oppose the motion.2 For the following reasons, the Court denies
plaintiff’s motion.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 20, 2021, plaintiff Dodiyi J. Williamwest, proceeding pro se,
filed a complaint listing the following causes of action:
Conspiracy, Fraud, Dereliction of duty, Malicious
prosecution, False imprisonment, loss of properties,
Breach of Contract, Slander, Libel, Denial of Due Process
of the Law, bodily injuries, and the denial of equal
protection under the law, clouding of his title, denial of
driving privileges, loss of degree.3
1 R. Doc. 84.
2 R. Doc. 86.
3 R. Doc. 1 ¶ 18.a.
Plaintiff broadly alleges these causes of action against 25 defendants: the City
of New Orleans, Quickies Discount, Martin Wiltz, POI Sean LeBeouf, HANO,
Sgt. Blanchard, Sheriff Marlin Gusman, Jacques Miller, Fredrick Lawler,
Sherry Richardson, Robert Jackson, LSUNO, Stars Oil, C.T. Corp., Sarah
Deland, LA Land Trust, Bobby Jindal, NOLA Green Roots, Road Home,
Mitch Landrieu, Crescent & Moon, Barack Obama, Bicks & Associates, LA
Department of Motor Vehicle, and Barry Grundman.4
This Court has previously entered three Orders and Reasons in this
case. First, on October 19, 2021, the Court set aside the entry of default
against defendants Allstate Insurance Company, James M. Lawler, Mitch
Landrieu, the City of New Orleans, Sarah Deland, and Sargent Blanchard
because they were not validly served with process.5 The Court also denied as
moot plaintiff’s motions for default judgments against these defendants.6
On October 25, 2021, the Court granted defendants Marlin N. Gusman,
Housing Authority of New Orleans, and Quickies Discount’s motions to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that
plaintiff’s claims against them were prescribed.7 The Court also denied
4 Id. ¶ 1.
5 R. Doc. 80.
6 Id.
7 R. Doc. 81.
plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment against Quickies Discount. Finally,
on November 5, 2021, the Court denied plaintiff’s applications for default
judgments against defendants Barry Grundman, Jacques Miller, Martin
Wiltz, and Sherry Richardson, for lack of personal jurisdiction, and
dismissed plaintiff’s claims against Star Oil as time-barred.8
On December 14, 2021, plaintiff moved for “a new trial” on all three of
the Court’s Orders and Reasons, asserting that they are “contrary to the Law
and evidence.”9 He requests that all dismissed defendants be “reinstat[ed]”
and that the Court maintain its entry of default against Allstate Insurance
Company.10 Defendants Sargent Blanchard, Mitch Landrieu, and the City of
New Orleans oppose the motion on grounds that, under Rule 59(b), a motion
for a new trial must be filed no later than twenty-eight days after the final
judgment.11 The Court considers the parties’ arguments below.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
As an initial matter, the Court must determine which Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure governs the timing of plaintiff’s “motion for a new trial.” The
8 R. Doc. 82.
9 R. Doc. 84.
10 Id. at 2.
11 R. Doc. 86.
Fifth Circuit has consistently recognized that parties may challenge an order
under Rules 54(b), 59(e), or 60(b). Reyes v. Julia Place Condo.
Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., No. 12-2043, 2016 WL 4272943, at *2 (E.D. La.
Aug. 15, 2016) (collecting cases). “Rules 59 and 60, however, apply only to
final judgments.” Id. (citing S. Snow Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Snowizard Holdings,
Inc., 921 F. Supp. 2d 548, 563-64 (E.D. La. 2013)). If a party seeks
reconsideration of an order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims among
all the parties, then Rule 54(b) controls.
Here, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of interlocutory orders that
dismissed some, but not all of the defendants from this case, and the denial
of plaintiff’s motion for default judgments. Accordingly, Rule 54(b) is the
appropriate standard under which to evaluate plaintiff’s motion for a new
trial. See Adams v. Columbia/HCA of New Orleans, Inc., No. 20-3030, 2021
WL 809372, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 3, 2021) (evaluating under Rule 54(b)
plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the court’s order granting a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss that dismissed some but not all of plaintiff’s claims);
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Heiberg, No. 17-690, 2020 WL 957640, at *2
(E.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2020) (construing plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of
the Court’s denial of an entry of default as a motion for reconsideration under
Rule 54(b)).
Rule 54(b) provides that an order that adjudicates fewer than all the
claims among all the parties “may be revised at any time” before the entry of
a final judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). As Rule 54 recognizes, a district court
“possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify
an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.” Melancon v.
Texaco, 659 F.2d 551, 553 (5th Cir. 1981). 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.” Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d
326, 336 (5th Cir. 2017). Although reconsideration under Rule 54(b) is
within the trial court’s broad discretion, reconsideration “is not provided
indiscriminately whenever some party may wish it,” as judges “must protect
themselves and the other parties against the delays and burdens that could
be imposed by yielding to simple disappointment or a deliberate desire to
inflict delay and burden.” See 18b Charles A. Wright, et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc.
§ 4478.1 (2d ed. 2002); Calpetco 1981 v. Marshall Expl., Inc., 989 F.2d 1408,
1414-15 (5th Cir. 1993).
Reconsideration of an interlocutory order under Rule 54(b) is less
stringent than reconsideration of judgments under Rule 59(e). Austin, 864
F.3d at 336. “Although a less exacting standard applies, courts look to
similar considerations as those it considers when evaluating Rule 59(e)
motions.” Edwards v. Take Fo’ Records, Inc., No. 19-12130, 2020 WL
3832606, at *11 & n.12 (E.D. La. July 8, 2020); see also Pierce v. Kellogg
Brown & Root, Inc., No. 15-6585, 2017 WL 2082947, at *1 (E.D. La. May 15,
2017). Amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) is considered an
“extraordinary remedy,” and 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].” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473,
478-79 (5th Cir. 2004).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asserts two grounds in support of his motion for
reconsideration. First, plaintiff argues that the Court incorrectly dismissed
his claim against defendant Marlin Gusman as time-barred. Because
plaintiff’s complaint did not state the date on which he alleges Sheriff
Gusman’s deputies “beat him up” and failed to return his personal
belongings “upon his release,” the Court construed, based on the language of
his complaint, that the purported incident occurred in December 2014.12
12 R. Doc. 81 at 6-7.
The Court thus found that, because plaintiff did not file this action within a
year of the incident, his section 1983 claim against Gusman was prescribed.13
In his motion for a new trial, plaintiff states that this was an erroneous
finding. 14 Plaintiff’s motion does not state when the alleged incident
occurred, and instead quotes dates from his initial complaint which are
unconnected to his claim against Gusman. Specifically, plaintiff cites to
language in his complaint stating that, after spending twelve days in prison,
“he was sent to [a] forensic facility in Jackson, LA, where he was held for
four[] years, and released to Grace Outreach where they continued to hold
him,” and that on “September 26, 2019, he was discharged from criminal
prosecution,” and “on November 12, 2020, without stating any cause, he was
Judicially committed.”15 Plaintiff also contends that the Court “overlooked”
that he originally filed suit in 2014, but that his case was ultimately dismissed
for failure to prosecute.16
Plaintiff’s recitation of various dates scattered throughout his
complaint fails to inform the Court of which of these dates, if any, is the date
of the alleged assault by Gusman’s deputies. Simply asserting that the Court
13 Id.
14 R. Doc. 84 at 1.
15 Id. (quoting R. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 5.b, 17.b).
16 Id. at 2.
incorrectly interpreted plaintiff’s complaint, without providing the
purportedly “correct” information, is insufficient reason for the Court to
reconsider its decision. Further, the only date that plaintiff cites in his
motion for a new trial that would not be prescribed by the statute of
limitations is the alleged November 12, 2020 judicial commitment to Grace
Outreach. But because plaintiff represents that he is being continually held
at Grace Outreach, there is nothing to suggest that his claims against
Gusman, which allegedly occurred “upon his release,” 17 correspond to the
alleged 2020 event.
Moreover, and more obviously, plaintiff does not avoid the one-year
statute of limitations requirement for his claim against Gusman by asserting
that he filed a separate complaint in 2014. Notably, nothing in his 2014
complaint states that he was suing Gusman because his deputies assaulted
him and refused to return his personal property.18 Accordingly, plaintiff has
failed to point to a date on which the alleged incident with Gusman’s deputies
occurred that falls within the one-year statute-of-limitations period.
Second, plaintiff asserts that Allstate provided him with an P.O. box for
an “out of state address,” and therefore plaintiff cannot “be faulted” for
17 R. Doc. 1 ¶ 9 (emphasis added).
18 Williamwest v. Obama, No. 14-2330 (E.D. La. Sept. 24, 2014).
mailing the complaint to that address.19 Whether Allstate provided plaintiff
with its correct address is irrelevant to the Court’s ruling that Allstate was
not properly served. The Court held that, “even if plaintiff had mailed the
summons and complaint to an authorized agent, service by mail does not
meet the delivery requirement of Rule 4(h)(1)(B).”2° Because plaintiff has
not pointed to any mistake in law or fact on which the Court’s holding as to
Allstate was based, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its Order.
In sum, for the reasons stated in the Court’s three Orders and Reasons,
and for the reasons stated here, the Court denies plaintiffs motion to
reconsider.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiffs motion to
reconsider.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this __3rd__ day of February, 2022.
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19 R. Doc. 84.
Doc. 80 at 6.