Holmes v. Reddoch

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MICHAEL R. HOLMES CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 19-12749

CORBETT REDDOCH, ET AL. SECTION I

ORDER & REASONS

Before the Court is a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion1 filed by

plaintiff, Michael R. Holmes (“Holmes”), for reconsideration of the Court’s order2

denying Holmes’ motion3 to lift the stay in the above-captioned case. Defendants,

Corbett Reddoch, Ryan Hebert, Holly Hardin, Chris Lambert, and Paul Durnin in

their individual capacities, and Sheriff Gerald A. Turlich, Jr., in his official capacity

as Sheriff of Plaquemines Parish (collectively, “defendants”), oppose the motion.4 For

the following reasons, the Court grants Holmes’ motion.

I. BACKGROUND

a. Factual Background

On December 6, 2018, Holmes was charged in Louisiana state court with

resisting an officer in violation of La. Rev. Stat. § 14:108.5 He pleaded not guilty. On

September 24, 2019, the date scheduled for his trial, the charge against Holmes was

dismissed. A minute entry from that date reads: “On motion of the State, this matter

1 R. Doc. No. 119.

2 R. Doc. No. 118.

3 R. Doc. No. 116.

4 R. Doc. No. 120.

5 R. Doc. No. 116-1, at 2.

is dismissed. Completed informal diversionary program.”6 The Louisiana district

court judge, assistant district attorney, and district court reporter were present at

the time of the dismissal, per the minute entry; however, neither Holmes nor his

counsel were present.7 “Holmes disputes ever entering into such a diversionary

program and . . . maintains that he never resisted arrest.” Holmes v. Reddoch, No.

19-12749, 2021 WL 1063069, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 18, 2021), vacated and remanded,

No. 21-30164 (“Federal Appeal”), 2021 WL 5913297 (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2021).

Holmes brought this federal lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging

violations of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.8 This Court found

most of Holmes’ claims to be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and

granted defendants summary judgment.9 The United States Court of Appeals for the

Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded, “[i]n light of [] state court developments” that

arose during the pendency of Holmes’ appeal to the Fifth Circuit:

The Louisiana [district] court held that the charge against Holmes

was not properly dismissed in open court and, since the charge was

filed over three years ago, ruled that it should be quashed entirely.

The court did not erase the minute entry, as it merely reflected

“what the DA said in court.” But the court did acknowledge there

was no evidence that Holmes had completed any diversionary

6 Id.

7 Id. at 2–3.

8 R. Doc. No. 1, at 10–11.

9 This Court found “defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from the few

federal claims that survived Heck. To the extent Holmes pled any state claims, they

were dismissed without prejudice because the court declined to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over them.” Federal Appeal, 2021 WL 5913297, at *1 n.1.

program, and that it was unaware of any Louisiana criminal

charge that had been resolved in a similar fashion.

Federal Appeal, 2021 WL 5913297, at *1.

The State of Louisiana appealed the state district court’s ruling to the

Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.10 At a status conference held before this

Court on February 10, 2022, the parties agreed that a stay of the federal court action

was appropriate, “pending the resolution in Louisiana state court of the appeal of the

Louisiana district court order quashing Holmes’ criminal charge.”11 The minute entry

from the status conference states that “[a]ny party may move to re-open [the] case by

written motion within 30 days of the issuance of a final judgment in the state

proceedings.”12

On April 13, 2022, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the

state district court’s judgment granting Holmes’ motion to quash.13 On August 23,

2022—132 days after the issuance of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s

final judgment—Holmes filed an unopposed motion to lift the stay in the above-

captioned case.14 The Court denied Holmes’ motion for untimeliness.15 Holmes filed

the motion currently before the Court—a motion for reconsideration of the denial of

10 See R. Doc. No. 116-1.

11 R. Doc. No. 115.

12 Id.

13 R. Doc. No. 116-1, at 7.

14 R. Doc. No. 116.

15 R. Doc. No. 118.

his motion to lift the stay—on September 27, 2022.16 The defendants oppose Holmes’

motion for reconsideration.17

b. Parties’ Arguments

Holmes acknowledges that his motion to lift the stay was untimely, and that it

did not argue good cause for the lateness of the filing.18 Nonetheless, Holmes asserts

that good cause exists for his lateness and that reconsideration is necessary to

prevent manifest injustice.19 First, Holmes asserts that his counsel reasonably

believed that “[a] motion to lift the stay within 30 days could have been mooted and

rendered premature by further appeal.” Second, Holmes argues that this Court’s

order denying his motion to lift the stay in this case “works a manifest injustice upon

Holmes in that his case will remain pending but remained stayed[,]” and that

“[l]ifting the stay prejudices no party but serves the interest of justice by allowing the

case to proceed to a resolution.”20

In their opposition, the defendants raise three arguments why the Court

should deny Holmes’ motion. First, defendants argue that “[a] motion to reconsider

must either point out clear error or bring something new to the table[,]” and it “does

not merely serve as a mulligan for an unsuccessful litigant.”21 Second, defendants

assert that Holmes’ motion for reconsideration does not meet Rule 16(b)(4)’s standard

16 R. Doc. Nos. 119 (motion for reconsideration) and 126 (reply memorandum).

17 R. Doc. Nos. 120 (memorandum in opposition) and 123 (supplemental

memorandum in opposition).

18 R. Doc. No. 119-1, at 2.

19 Id.

20 Id. at 1–2, 3.

21 R. Doc. No. 120, at 6.

for determining good cause for his violation of the Court’s February 10, 2022 order,

and that his “statement of alleged good cause makes no sense.”22 Third, and finally,

the defendants argue that Holmes’ motion violates Local Rule 7.4.23

II. STANDARD OF LAW

a. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly recognize motions for

reconsideration. Bass v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 211 F.3d 959, 962 (5th Cir. 2000).

However, the Fifth Circuit has consistently held that parties may challenge a

judgement or order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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) (Barbier, J.) (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 prior to entry of final judgment, then Rule 54(b) controls. Specifically, Rule

54(b) provides that

any 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

22 Id. at 8.

23 Id. Local Rule 7.4 states that “[a]ll contested motions must be accompanied by

separate memoranda which must contain a concise statement of reasons supporting

the motion and citations of authorities.” As Holmes’ motion contains all the required

components, the Court finds that Holmes’ motion does not violate Local Rule 7.4.

judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and

liabilities.

Rule 54 recognizes that 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). Accordingly,

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).

Comparing Rules 59(e) and 54(b), the former “sets a high threshold for parties

to raise a new argument for the first time after judgment has already been entered”

while the latter can be “more flexible, reflecting the ‘inherent power of the rendering

district court to afford such relief from interlocutory judgments as justice requires.’”

Id. at 336–37 (quoting Cobell v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12, 25–26 (D.C. Cir. 2015)) (internal

citations omitted). In short, reconsideration of an interlocutory order under Rule 54(b)

is less stringent than reconsideration of judgments under Rule 59(e).24 Austin, 864

F.3d at 336. Nonetheless, while “a less exacting standard applies, courts look to

24 When ruling on Rule 59(e) motions, courts in this district consider: “(1) whether the

movant demonstrates the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact

upon which the judgment is based; (2) whether the movant presents new evidence;

(3) whether the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice; and (4)

whether the motion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling law.”

United States v. Cytogel Pharma, LLC, No. 16-13987, 2017 WL 3849317, at *2 (E.D.

La. Mar. 28, 2017) (Vance, J.). Rule 59 motions should not be used to relitigate old

matters, raise new arguments, or submit evidence that could have been presented

earlier in the proceedings. Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir.

2004); Rosenblatt v. United Way of Greater Houston, 607 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir. 2010).

similar considerations as those it considers when evaluating Rule 59(e) motions.”25

Edwards v. Take Fo’ Records, Inc., No. 19-12130, 2020 WL 3832606, at *11 & n.12

(E.D. La. July 8, 2020) (Feldman, J.); see also Pierce v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.,

No. 15-6585, 2017 WL 2082947, at *1 (E.D. La. May 15, 2017) (Vance, J.).

III. ANALYSIS

a. Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 54(b)

This Court’s order staying the above-captioned action was an interlocutory

order adjudicating fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of the parties.

See Louisiana State Conf. of Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Colored People v.

Louisiana, No. 19-479, 2022 WL 2753069, at *5 (M.D. La. July 13, 2022) (ruling that

a stay order “was like any other interlocutory order entered before a final judgment

that could be ‘revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the

claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)); cf.

Kershaw v. Shalala, 9 F.3d 11, 13 (5th Cir. 1993) (ruling that the Court of Appeals

was “without jurisdiction to entertain [an] appeal because the [district court’s stay]

order [was] interlocutory and [was] not within a recognized exception.”). The correct

rule to apply to Holmes’ motion for reconsideration is therefore Rule 54(b).

25 It has been the general practice of courts in this district to analyze Rule 54(b)

motions for reconsideration under the same framework as Rule 59(e) motions. See,

e.g., Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 09–4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at

*3 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2010) (Vance, J.); Rosemond v. AIG Ins., No. 08–1145, 2009 WL

1211020, at *2 (E.D. La. May 4, 2009) (Barbier, J.); In re Katrina Canal Breaches, No.

05–4182, 2009 WL 1046016, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 16, 2009) (Duval, J.). However, in

light of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., the Court’s analysis

will not be limited to the four factors considered in Rule 59(e) motions, supra n.24.

Further, as the Fifth Circuit instructed in Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., “the

district court should construe the procedural rules with a preference toward resolving

the case on the merits and avoiding any dismissal based on a technicality.” 864 F.3d

at 337. In Austin, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the district court abused its discretion

when it erroneously applied the more stringent standard of Rule 59(e) to a motion for

reconsideration of an interlocutory order. The correct, and “more flexible,” rule to

apply was Rule 54(b). Id. at 337. Accordingly, in the case presently before the Court,

though Holmes seeks relief pursuant to Rule 59(e),26 the appropriate rule to apply to

Holmes’ motion for reconsideration is Rule 54(b).

As noted, Holmes offers two grounds in support of his motion for

reconsideration: first, that his late filing was due to his counsel’s reasonable

misunderstanding of the Court’s scheduling order and belief that filing a motion to

lift the stay prematurely could result in the motion being mooted by further appeal;

and second, that the Court’s order denying his motion to lift the stay in this case

“works a manifest injustice upon Holmes in that his case will remain pending but

remained stayed[,]” and that “[l]ifting the stay prejudices no party but serves the

interest of justice by allowing the case to proceed to a resolution.”27

26 Defendants’ opposition to Holmes’ motion for reconsideration likewise relies upon

Rule 59(e) to argue that granting reconsideration would be inappropriate. R. Doc. No.

120 at 4–6 (“A motion to reconsider must either point out clear error or bring

something new to the table[,]” and “does not merely serve as a mulligan for an

unsuccessful litigant”). Because the Court finds the applicable rule to be Rule 54(b),

the Court will not address either Holmes’ or the defendants’ arguments pertaining to

Rule 59(e).

27 R. Doc. No. 119, at 1–2, 3.

Defendants argue that Holmes’ alleged good cause “makes no sense.”28 They

point out that the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s final judgment was

issued on April 13, 2022 and the 30-day timeframe to appeal that judgment to the

Louisiana Supreme Court would have ended on May 13, 2022. Even an additional 30

days after May 13—if Holmes believed he had 30 days to move to reopen this case

after the 30 days to appeal the circuit court’s judgment—would be June 13, 2022.

Holmes filed his motion to lift the stay in the above-captioned case on August 23,

2022. The defendants argue, and this Court agrees, that Holmes’ proffered good cause

is unconvincing.

Moreover, attorney mistake is generally not good cause for lateness or for

extending deadlines. See, e.g., Dunn v. Marquette Transportation Co., LLC, No. 16-

13545, 2018 WL 3997283, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 21, 2018) (Fallon, J.) (“Mistake or

oversight by counsel does satisfy the ‘good cause’ requirement for extending a

deadline for filing.”); Facille v. Madere & Sons Towing, Inc., No. 13-6470, 2014 WL

3099979, at *4 (E.D. La. July 7, 2014) (Brown, C.J.) (“[A] scheduling mistake in

counsel’s office . . . is not the type of satisfactory explanation for which relief may be

granted.”) (quoting Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d 787, 791 (5th Cir.1990)).

28 R. Doc. No. 120, at 8. Defendants also argue that the Rule 16(b)(4) test for good

cause controls the analysis of whether Holmes had good cause for his lateness. As

Rule 16 pertains to pretrial proceedings and scheduling orders, and Holmes’ motion

sought to lift the stay ordered at the status conference held on February 10, 2022,

Rule 16 is inapplicable. See S&W Enterprises, L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama,

NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (“Rule 16(b) provides that a scheduling order

shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the district

judge”) (quotations omitted).

Nonetheless, other courts in this district have found the lack of good cause for

lateness to be no bar to a court’s inherent authority to “control the disposition of the

causes on its docket” where concerns for fairness and judicial economy do not also

weigh against granting reconsideration. Facille, 2014 WL 3099979, at *4 (quoting

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936)). In Facille, counsel for the

defendant admitted to a scheduling oversight, which he had not fully disclosed in his

motion requesting a continuance of the trial date. Id. at *1, 5. Despite counsel’s

error—and obfuscation—the court found it appropriate to grant the defendant’s

motion for reconsideration and to grant a continuance. Id. at *5. In reaching this

conclusion, the court noted that plaintiff did not object to a continuance, defense

counsel had already “participated extensively in discovery,” and a continuance would

not unduly burden the court. Id.

Even if Holmes’ counsel’s mistake did not rise to the level of good cause, the

Court’s broad discretion to “reconsider and reverse its decision for any reason it

deems sufficient” allows the Court “to afford such relief from interlocutory judgments

as justice requires.” Austin, 864 F.3d at 336–37. As Holmes argues regarding his

second grounds for reconsideration, denying his motion for reconsideration would

render his case a “zombie”—neither dismissed nor resolved, neither dead nor alive.

This is a heavy price for Holmes to pay for the mistakes of his counsel.

In contrast, the defendants have not argued that they would be prejudiced if

the Court were to grant Holmes’ motion for reconsideration and lift the stay in this

case. Indeed, Holmes’ initial motion to lift the stay and reopen the case was

unopposed.29 Additionally, the delay caused by Holmes’ counsels’ untimely filing had

little impact on the disposition of the case as it was stayed and the proceedings

paused. Granting Holmes’ motion for reconsideration and lifting the stay, despite its

untimeliness, does not unduly burden the defendants or the Court. Justice requires

Holmes’ lawsuit not remain in judicial purgatory indefinitely because of attorney

error.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Holmes’ motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Holmes’ motion to lift the stay in the

above-captioned case is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephone conference will be conducted

by the Court’s case manager at which time a new trial date, pretrial conference date,

and schedule will be set.

New Orleans, Louisiana, November 4,

n_

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

29 See generally R. Doc. No. 116; see also R. Doc. No. 123-1, at 1 (email exchange

between Holmes’ counsel and defense counsel in which defense counsel tells Holmes’

counsel to “go ahead & lift it’).

11