The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TOMARCUS PORTER CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-0504
RUSSELL ROBERTS, ET AL. SECTION “H” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff Tomarcus Porter filed a Motion to Reconsider the Court’s October 15, 2024, order
denying his Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 26). ECF No. 31. He includes in the motion
a restatement of the additional factual statements and legal arguments he sought to amend into his
complaint in support of his alleged due process claim against defendant Lt. Russell Roberts. Id.
at 1-2 (section captioned Motion to Amend Complaint).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide specifically for motions for
reconsideration.1 However, under FED. R. CIV. P. 54, “[d]istrict courts have considerable
discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order. The exact
standard applicable to the granting of a motion under Rule 54(b) is not clear, though it is typically
held to be less exacting than would be a motion under Rule 59(e), which is in turn less exacting
than the standards enunciated in Rule 60(b).”2 The general practice of courts in the Eastern
District has been to evaluate motions to reconsider under the same standards that govern Rule
59(e) motions to alter or amend a final judgment, balancing the interests of justice with the need
1 Cressionnie v. Hample, 184 F. App'x 366, 369 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works,
Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990)); Shepherd v. Int’l Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing
Hamilton Plaintiffs v. Williams Plaintiffs, 147 F.3d 367, 371 n.10 (5th 1998)).
2 Livingston Downs Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Jefferson Downs Corp., 259 F. Supp. 2d 471, 475 (M.D. La. 2002) (citations
omitted); Tex. Comptroller of Pub. Accts. v. Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002) (A Rule 59(e)
motion “calls into question the correctness of a judgment,” and courts have considerable discretion in deciding whether
to grant such a motion) (same).
for finality.3 The four relevant factors in deciding a motion to reconsider under Rule 59(e) are
whether: (1) the motion is necessary to correct a manifest error of law or fact upon which the
judgment is based; (2) the movant presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence;
(3) the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) the motion is justified by
an intervening change in controlling law.4
Motions to reconsider “serve the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”5 They are not the proper vehicle
for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments.6 Nor should a motion for reconsideration be
used to raise arguments that could have and should have been made before entry of an order or to
re-urge matters that have already been advanced by a party.7 When there exists no independent
reason for reconsideration other than mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a
waste of judicial time and resources and should not be granted.8
In the prior order, the court denied Porter’s motion to amend as futile under the standards
set forth in FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a).9 ECF No. 27. The court determined futility based on Porter’s
3 See, e.g., Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 09-4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4 (E.D. La. Apr. 5,
2010) (citations omitted); Rosemond v. AIG Ins., No. 08-1145, 2009 WL 1211020, at *2 (E.D. La. May 4, 2009).
4 Gulf Island Shipyards, LLC v. LaShip, LLC, No. 22-154, 2024 WL 1794361, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 25, 2024) (quoting
Henry v. New Orleans La. Saints, LLC, No. 15-5971, 2016 WL 3524107, at *2 (E.D. La. June 28, 2016); Fields v.
Pool Offshore, Inc., No. 97-3170, 1998 WL 43217, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 1998)).
5 Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
6 Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990).
7 See Browning v. Navarro, 894 F.2d 99, 100 (5th Cir. 1990).
8 Livingston Downs Racing Ass’n, 259 F. Supp. 2d at 481.
9 Amendment under Rule 15 “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” See, e.g., Gibson v. Ocean
Shipholdings, Inc., No. 15-0662, 2015 WL 4645663, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 4, 2015) (applying FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a) to
motion to substitute party-defendant); In evaluating the propriety of the amendment, the factors the court should
consider “includ[e] undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failures to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
amendment, and futility of the amendment.” Jones v. Robinson Prop. Grp., L.P., 427 F. 3d 987 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing
Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 598 (5th Cir. 1981)); United States ex rel. Spicer v. Westbrook, 751
F.3d 354, 367 (5th Cir. 2014).
2
failure to allege sufficient facts to state a due process claim arising from the allegedly false
disciplinary report by his failure specifically to allege the type of atypical restrictions necessary to
state a due process claim.'® Jd. at 3-5. As a basis for reconsideration, Porter presents the same
proposed amended and supplemental claims that this court already rejected in the prior order,
adding only a brief listing of restrictions imposed upon him while on administrative lockdown for
four weeks. ECF No. 31, at 1-2. These same restrictions, e.g. phone, commissary, and shower
restrictions, were addressed by the court in the prior order as specific examples of the types of
temporary administrative restrictions that have been deemed typical, not atypical, for purposes of
stating a due process claim. ECF No. 27, at 5.
Porter’s motion and proposed claims present insufficient allegations of fact and law to state
a non-frivolous due process claim to allow an amendment or to overcome the recommendation of
dismissal of his due process claim as frivolous. Porter does not assert that reconsideration is
necessary to correct a manifest error of law or fact, present newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence, or argue that an intervening change in the law warrants reconsideration.
Porter simply disagrees with the court’s prior decision denying his motion to amend. Porter,
therefore, has not established that reconsideration of this court’s October 15, 2024 ruling 1s
appropriate. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Porter’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 31) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 12th day of November, 2024.
Covrnldaity (urau
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10 Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995); Carmouche v. Hooper, 77 F Ath 362, 367 (Sth Cir. 2023).