# Holmes v. Reddoch

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · November 4, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10188539

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** November 4, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10188539

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10188539. Public record. Not legal advice.