The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JEREMY STRICKLAND CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-379
21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SECTION: “G”(4)
DIVISION “D”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Jeremy Strickland’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Reconsider
Judgment.1 Plaintiff, a convicted inmate housed in the B.B. “Sixty” Rayburn Correctional Center
(“RCC”), filed a pro se and in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
21st Judicial District Court for Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, Division “D” (“21st JDC”).2 On
June 28, 2024, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and § 1915A
as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.3 Plaintiff now seeks
reconsideration of the Judgment.
The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims because Louisiana state courts are not considered
persons within the meaning of Section 1983.4 To the extent Plaintiff intended to sue the state
district court judge, the Court found that the judge would be entitled to judicial immunity.5 Even
if Plaintiff could identify a proper defendant, the Court found Plaintiff’s claims would be barred
1 Rec. Doc. 13.
2 Rec. Doc. 4.
3 Rec. Doc. 12.
4 Rec. Doc. 11.
5 Id.
under the Heck doctrine because Plaintiff’s claims directly challenge the veracity and validity of
his conviction and the plea agreement he entered in state court.6
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling.7 He argues the plea agreement he
entered in state court denied him due process and equal protection of the law.8 Plaintiff asserts that
federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases challenging the constitutionality and
validity of a conviction.9 In support, Plaintiff cites Supreme Court cases addressing federal writs
of habeas corpus.10
The Fifth Circuit has noted that while the Federal Rules “do not recognize a ‘motion for
reconsideration’ in haec verba,” it has consistently recognized that such a motion may challenge
a judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b), depending on the time of the
filing.11 If such a motion is filed within 28 days after entry of the judgment from which relief is
being sought, the motion will be treated as a motion to reconsider under Rule 59(e).12 Plaintiff’s
motion was filed within 28 days after entry of the Judgment.13 Accordingly, the Court considers
the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
6 Id.
7 See Rec. Doc. 13.
8 Id. at 1–2.
9 Id. at 2.
10 Id. (citing Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923); Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935); Bowen v.
Johnston, 306 U.S. 19 (1930)).
11 Gulf Offshore Logistics, L.L.C., et al. v. Seiran Exploration & Prod. Co., LLC, et al., No. 11-1788, 2014
WL 2215747, at *5 (E.D. La. May 28, 2014) (Brown, J.) (quoting Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc.,
910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990)).
12 Hamilton Plaintiffs v. Williams Plaintiffs, 147 F.3d 367, 371 n.10 (5th Cir. 1998). See also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e).
13 See Rec. Docs. 12, 13.
“[A] motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) ‘must clearly establish either
a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence’ and ‘cannot be used to
raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.”14 In
deciding motions for reconsideration, courts in this district consider four factors: (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.15 However, “[r]econsideration of a judgment after its
entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.”16
Plaintiff does not present any manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or
an intervening change in the controlling law. Plaintiff asserts that this Court should consider his
Section 1983 claims on the merits because federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over
cases challenging the constitutionality and validity of a conviction.17 In support, Plaintiff cites
Supreme Court cases addressing federal writs of habeas corpus.18 The instant case was filed under
Section 1983, not as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
It would be futile to construe the Complaint as a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider such a petition. Plaintiff previously filed
14 Rosenblatt v. United Way of Greater Houston, 607 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Simon v. United
States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)).
15 See, e.g., Castrillo v. Am Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 09-4369, 2010 WL 1424398 at *3–4 (E.D. La.
Apr. 5, 2010) (Vance, J.).
16 Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
17 Rec. Doc. 13 at 2.
18 Id. (citing Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923); Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935); Bowen v.
Johnston, 306 U.S. 19 (1930)).
a Section 2254 petition challenging this same conviction that was dismissed with prejudice on the
merits.!° This Court does not have jurisdiction to consider a second or successive habeas petition
challenging that same state criminal judgment unless the habeas petitioner has obtained
authorization for such a filing from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.”°
Plaintiff has not obtained authorization from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive habeas petition.
Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider a successive Section 2254 petition.
Plaintiff provides no valid basis for reconsideration of the Judgment dismissing his Section 1983
claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Jeremy Strickland’s Motion to Reconsider
Judgment”! is DISMISSED.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 31st. day of January, 2025.
NANNETTE J VETTE BROWN □□□
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19 Strickland y. Day, No. 21-cv-2307 (E.D. La. Aug. 29, 2022).
20 See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
21 Rec. Doc. 13.