# Flanks

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · January 9, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11239550

## Case

- **Full name:** Raymond Flanks v. City of New Orleans, ET AL.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** January 9, 2026
- **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/11239550

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RAYMOND FLANKS CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS CASE NO. 23-6897
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL. SECTION: “G”(4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Raymond Flanks’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Partial
Reconsideration1 and a Motion to Expedite the Motion for Partial Reconsideration.2 Plaintiff seeks
partial reconsideration of a prior Order ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence
of Third-Party Responsibility and Limit Opinion Testimony.3 In the prior motion, Plaintiff sought
to exclude Defendants from offering any evidence or argument that the actions of third parties
contributed to cause his wrongful conviction.4 The Court denied that portion of the motion for two
reasons: (1) “evidence concerning the alleged fault of any other party who may have contributed
to Plaintiff’s conviction is relevant to [his] negligence claim,” and (2) evidence of how Mr. Flanks’
trial counsel “might have used certain evidence and the effect that might have had on the trial is
relevant in assessing the materiality of the alleged Brady violation and whether suppression of the
evidence proximately caused Plaintiff’s conviction.”5 Plaintiff has now voluntarily dismissed his

negligence claim.6 He understands that the defense may present evidence regarding how the

1 Rec. Doc. 210.
2 Rec. Doc. 211.
3 Rec. Doc. 186.
4 Rec. Doc. 130-1 at 1–5.
5 Rec. Doc. 186 at 8.
6 Rec. Doc. 202.
criminal trial counsel could have used the suppressed evidence at trial to determine materiality.
However, he asserts the Court should disallow any evidence, inference, or argument that any third
party should be assigned liability or fault under Section 1983.
A motion for reconsideration is “‘not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal
theories, or arguments.’”7 Instead, such motions “serve the narrow purpose of allowing a party to

correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”8 “It is well settled
that [such motions] should not be used . . . to re-urge matters that have already been advanced by
a party.”9
There is nothing in the prior Order for the Court to reconsider. The comparative fault
analysis discussed in the prior Order related to Plaintiff’s now dismissed negligence claim.
“Recovery for civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are not subject to diminution resulting
from comparative fault.”10 Nothing in the prior Order holds otherwise. As stated in the prior Order,
the defense may present evidence regarding how the criminal trial counsel could have used the
suppressed evidence at trial to determine materiality. Evidence, inference, or argument that any

third party should be assigned liability or fault under Section 1983 was not contemplated in the
prior Order and will not be allowed. There is no reason to reconsider the prior Order. Therefore,
the instant motions are moot.
Accordingly,

7 Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. CIV.A. 09-4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4 (E.D. La.
Apr. 5, 2010) (quoting Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478–79 (5th Cir. 2004)).
8 See Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989).
9 Helena Labs. v. Alpha Scientific Corp., 483 F. Supp. 2d 538, 539 (citing Browning v. Navarro, 894 F.2d
99, 100 (5th Cir. 1990)).
10 Henderson v. Turner, No. CIV.A. 11-39, 2012 WL 3109481, at *2 (M.D. La. July 31, 2012). See also
Quezada v. Cnty. of Bernalillo, 944 F.2d 710, 721 (10th Cir. 1991) (“[C]omparative negligence is not applied in suits
for violations of federal constitutional rights under § 1983.”) (overruled on other grounds); Jones v. Cannizzaro, No.
CV 18-503, 2021 WL 217282, at *5 (E.D. La. Jan. 21, 2021).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration’! and
Motion to Expedite the Motion for Partial Reconsideration’? are MOOT.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 9th_ day of January, 2026.

DN ght BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

"Rec. Doc. 210.
Rec. Doc. 211.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11239550. Public record. Not legal advice.