Mullins v. City of Jackson et al, No. 5:2008cv00286 - Document 69 (E.D. Ky. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: The construed 68 MOTION for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on June 10, 2010.(AWD) cc: COR
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-286-JBC TERRY LEE MULLINS, V. PLAINTIFF, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOHN MARSHALL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. *********** This matter is before the court on the plaintiff s motion to appeal summary judgment, which the court construes as a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons below, the court will deny the motion. I. Background Terry Lee Mullins filed suit against John Marshall, a police officer for the city of Jackson, Kentucky, and several other defendants in connection with a gunshot wound Mullins sustained on January 24, 2008. This court granted Marshall s motion for summary judgment on March 26, 2010. R. 66. Mullins moved for reconsideration on April 8, 2010. R. 68. II. Analysis A motion to reconsider is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 617 (6th Cir. 2002). A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted where there is a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change of 1 law, or to prevent manifest injustice. GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). Instead of seeking reconsideration based on any of these grounds, Mullins seeks to reargue the merits of the motion for summary judgment. In addition to reasserting arguments that this court has previously rejected, Mullins now claims that he is entitled to relief due to Marshall s negligence and because Marshall had a constitutional duty to protect Mullins. These claims were not included in Mullins s third amended complaint, however, and a motion to reconsider is not an appropriate mechanism for raising new arguments or stating new claims. Graves v. Bowles, No. 07-207, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26507, at *7 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 19, 2010). III. Conclusion Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the construed motion for reconsideration, R. 68, is DENIED. Signed on June 10, 2010 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
