The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARWILL BODDEN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-2385
RICHARD MOORE, ET AL. SECTION “R” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the opposed1 motion for reconsideration of this
Court’s order and judgment.2 Because plaintiff has failed to show that she is
entitled to relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59, the Court denies
her motion.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a series of incidents occurring between 2011 and
2014, including multiple arrests that plaintiff alleged were unlawful.3
Plaintiff sued Judge Richard Moore, who presided over plaintiff’s criminal
case, and the 19th District Court in forma pauperis for monetary damages
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).4
1 R. Doc. 29.
2 R. Doc. 27.
3 R. Doc. 4.
4 R. Doc. 3. In plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaint, she
misidentifies Judge Moore as “Robert Moore.” Id. at 1; see also R. Doc.
4 at 1.
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against them under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6), contending that
absolute immunity bars plaintiff’s claims against Judge Moore and that the
19th Judicial District Court is not an entity with the capacity to be sued.5
Plaintiff opposed the motion and separately moved to amend her complaint.6
The Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, and denied her motion to amend
finding that amendment would be futile.7 In its order, the Court found that
the 19th Judicial District Court does not have the capacity to be sued, the
Eleventh Amendment barred plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim against Judge
Moore in his official capacity, and Judge Moore was entitled to absolute
immunity for plaintiff’s remaining claims.8 The Court issued a judgment on
April 22, 2025, and plaintiff filed this motion to reconsider on May 2, 2025.
Defendants oppose this motion.9
The Court considers the motion below.
5 See R. Doc. 15-1 at 5-6, 8. Defendants also argued that plaintiff’s
complaints are barred by the statute of limitations and Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and that plaintiff failed to effect
sufficient service of process. Id. at 7-10.
6 R. Doc. 17.
7 R. Doc. 25.
8 Id.
9 R. Doc. 29.
II. LAW AND DISCUSSION
Rule 59(e) permits a party to file “[a] motion to alter or amend a
judgment . . . after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A district
court has “considerable discretion” under Rule 59(e). See Edward H. Bohlin
Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). That said,
“[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy
that should be used sparingly.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473,
479 (5th Cir. 2004). “The court must strike the proper balance between the
two competing imperatives: (1) finality, and (2) the need to render just
decisions on the basis of all the facts.” Edward H. Bohlin Co., 6 F.3d at 355.
To succeed on a Rule 59(e) motion, a party must “clearly establish
either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered
evidence.” Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005). Rule 59(e)
motions are “not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or
arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of
judgment.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.
Here, plaintiff has not shown that reconsideration is appropriate under
the Rule 59(e) standard. Plaintiff does not assert that new facts have arisen,
or that there has been an intervening change in the law. Instead, plaintiff
rehashes the allegations contained in her first amended complaint and her
second motion to amend. Further, although plaintiff asserts that the Court
made an error in law, she does not state what the alleged error is. Instead,
plaintiff insists that she was entitled to review of her complaint, which the
Court already conducted when it decided defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, the Court denies plaintiffs motion to alter or amend the
judgment.
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiffs motion to alter
or amend the judgment.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of July, 2025.
—hervk Varia
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE