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
reconsideration1 of the Court’s order granting the Housing Authority of New
Orleans’s (“HANO”) motion to quash.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. 108.
2 R. Doc. 107.
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 As it specifically
relates to HANO, plaintiff alleges that HANO “harassed [and] intimidated
him and demolished his 1609 Port (Annex) Quad buildings worth a million
[dollars].”5
On October 25, 2021, the Court granted a motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed by defendants Marlin N.
Gusman, Quickies Discount’s, and HANO, on the grounds that plaintiff’s
claims against them were prescribed.6 Plaintiff’s claims against HANO were
dismissed with prejudice. 7 On February 3, 2022, the Court denied
Williamwest’s motion to reconsider the dismissal.8
4 Id. ¶ 1.
5 Id. ¶ 6.
6 R. Doc. 81.
7 Id.
8 R. Doc. 87.
After the Court’s denial of his motion to reconsider, plaintiff moved to
file a supplemental and amended complaint.9 On March 14, 2022, the
Magistrate Judge granted plaintiff leave to file the supplemental complaint.10
HANO was later served with a summons containing a copy of the original
and supplemental complaints.11 HANO then moved to quash the summons
on the grounds that HANO was previously dismissed from this case and thus
plaintiff’s claims against it are barred by claim preclusion.12 The Court
granted HANO’s motion on the grounds of claim preclusion.13 Plaintiff now
moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting HANO’s motion to
quash.14 The Court considers the motion below.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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
9 R. Doc. 88.
10 R. Doc. 90.
11 R. Doc. 92 at 1, 3.
12 R. Doc. 96.
13 R. Doc. 107.
14 R. Doc. 108.
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
Here, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s order quashing his
summons on the grounds of claim preclusion. In support of his motion for
reconsideration, plaintiff asserts that an “exception [to] res judicata” should
apply because: (1) the Court’s order was “premature,” and (2) plaintiff did
not oppose the motion given that the Court had “asked” plaintiff “not to take
action.”15 Notably, plaintiff does not object to the Court’s finding that his
supplemental complaint raises claims against HANO that have been fully
adjudicated on the merits.
The Court finds that plaintiff’s unfounded assertions about his failure
to oppose HANO’s motion and the premature nature of this Court’s order are
not sufficient reasons for reconsideration. See Melancon, 659 F.2d at 553
(noting the district court’s inherent power to reconsider an order “for cause
15 Id. at 1.
seen by it to be sufficient”). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Court’s
Order granting HANO’s motion to quash,16 and for the reasons stated here,
the Court denies plaintiff’s motion to reconsider.
The Court additionally notes that plaintiff has a history of filing
meritless pleadings before various sections of this Court. See, e.g., Dodiyi J.
Williamwest v. Barack Obama, et al., No. 14-2330 (E.D. La. Apr. 24, 2015)
(noting that plaintiff’s “history of frivolous litigation is quite clear from the
record” and that “in every instance, this [C]ourt has had to issue orders
ensuring no further frivolous filings by plaintiff even after dismissal of the
case”); Dodiyi J. Williamwest v. Jeffrey Napolitano, et al., No. 07-973 (E.D.
La. Apr. 3, 2007); Dodiyi J. Williamwest v. Morgan Buildings & Spas, Inc.,
et al., No. 07-977 (E.D. La. Mar. 28, 2007); Dodiyi Williamwest v. Barry
Grundmann, et al., No. 85-5946 (E.D. La. Feb. 18, 1985). Specifically,
plaintiff has sued HANO in at least two prior lawsuits that were dismissed.
See Dodiyi J. Williamwest v. Jeffrey Napolitano, et al., No. 07-973 (E.D. La.
Apr. 3, 2007); Dodiyi J. Williamwest v. Barack Obama, et al., No. 14-2330
(E.D. La. Apr. 24, 2015).
Additionally, in the present case, plaintiff has filed several baseless
motions against HANO. Plaintiff has moved three times for an entry of
16 R. Doc. 107.
default against HANO.17 Further, after the Court granted HANO’s motion to
dismiss,18 plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration,19 which was also
denied by the Court.20 Plaintiff subsequently served HANO with a summons
that contained a copy of his original complaint and supplemental complaint,
although HANO had already been dismissed from this case.21 And plaintiff
now moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting HANO’s motion
to quash the summons.22 In light of the plaintiff’s continued frivolous filings,
the Court orders that plaintiff cease further filings against HANO in the
above-captioned case.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to
reconsider.23
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff is prohibited from filing with this
Court any further motions, pleadings, or other papers against HANO with
respect to the above-captioned case, and that the Clerk of Court for the
17 R. Docs. 10, 55 & 111.
18 R. Doc. 81.
19 R. Doc. 84.
20 R. Doc. 87.
21 R. Doc. 93.
22 R. Doc. 108.
23 Id.
Eastern District of Louisiana shall not accept for filing and shall return to the
plaintiff any such further motions, pleadings, or other papers.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this_3rd__ day of August, 2022.
Lerak Vavee_
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE