Lee v. Cain, No. 2:2012cv01185 - Document 59 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER & REASONS: 58 Petitioner's motion is entitled Request for Re-Hearing from the Denial of the Petitioners Motion for Relief from Judgment Federal Rules for Civil Procedure Rule 60(b). The Court shall construe this as a second motion for reconsideration. ORDERED that Petitioner Charles Lee's Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 58) is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 11/9/16. (sek)

Download PDF
Lee v. Cain Doc. 59 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CHARLES LEE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 12-1185 N. BURL CAIN, WARDEN SECTION: “J” ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is Petitioner Charles Lee’s Second Motion for Reconsideration. 1 (Rec. Doc. 58) This Court previously determined that Petitioner’s First Motion for Reconsideration (R. Doc. 38) was untimely. (R. Doc. 57.) Upon review of the record, Mr. Lee’s motion, and the applicable law, this Court finds, for the reasons set forth below, that Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration (R. Doc. 58) should be DENIED. Rule 60(b) provides that a court may reconsider an order for several reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(e); (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or it is based on a prior 1 Petitioner’s motion is entitled “Request for Re-Hearing from the Denial of the Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Federal Rules for Civil Procedure Rule 60(b).” The Court shall construe this as a second motion for reconsideration. Dockets.Justia.com judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or it is no longer equitable for the judgment to have prospective application; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A district court has considerable discretion to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration. See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). A court’s reconsideration of an earlier order is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly. Kelly v. Bayou Fleet, Inc., No. 05-6871, 2007 WL 3275200, at *1 (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2007). Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that would support the granting of his Second Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b). Furthermore, Petitioner has already sought reconsideration from this Court, which was denied. (R. Doc. 57.) Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Charles Lee’s Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 58) is hereby DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 9th day of November, 2016. ____________________________ CARL J. BARBIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.