Todd v. Morgan City et al, No. 2:2014cv01101 - Document 72 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 69 Motion to alter or amend the Court's ruling.. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 3/14/16. (jjs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Todd v. Morgan City et al Doc. 72 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SONIA TODD CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 14-110 1 CITY OF MORGAN CITY, ET AL. SECTION “R” (5) ORD ER AN D REASON S On J anuary 13, 20 16, the Court granted sum m ary judgment on plaintiff Sonia Todd’s section 1983 civil rights claim , finding that Todd failed to exhaust her adm inistrative rem edies while she was incarcerated at the Morgan City J ail. 1 Todd now m oves the Court to alter or am end its ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 2 In support of her m otion, Todd subm its an affidavit, executed on J anuary 27, 20 16, in which she swears that she was “never inform ed” of the Morgan City J ail’s adm inistrative remedy procedure. 3 Todd also subm its an affidavit, executed on February 2, 20 16, in which counsel’s secretary Elizabeth Downey swears that she contacted the editor of the Louisiana Register, who inform ed Downey that the Morgan City J ail did not subm it its 1 R. Doc. 67. 2 R. Doc. 69. 3 R. Doc. 69-3 at 2 ¶ 7-8. Dockets.Justia.com adm inistrative remedy procedure to the publication. 4 Todd attaches to Downey’s affidavit an email exchange between Downey and the editor, which Downey initiated on J anuary 14, 20 16—one day after the Court granted sum m ary judgment in defendants’ favor. Todd argues that these affidavits directly contradict defendants’ summ ary judgm ent evidence that the Morgan City J ail had an adm inistrative remedy procedure in place and that Todd failed to com ply with that procedure by neglecting to file a form al inm ate grievance. Reconsideration of a judgm ent under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly” to correct “manifest errors or law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” In re Rodriguez, 695 F.3d 360 , 371 (5th Cir. 20 12). “Rule 59(e) m otions are not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories or argum ents that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgm ent.” Id. Here, Todd argues that her affidavit and the affidavit of her attorney’s secretary constitute “newly discovered evidence.”5 Because none of the inform ation within either affidavit is truly “new,” reconsideration of the 4 R. Doc. 69-4 at 1-2. 5 R. Doc. 69-2 at 8. Court’s ruling is not warranted. Todd attem pts to use her sworn declaration—executed after the Court’s entry of judgment—to re-urge the argument, which the Court has already disposed of, that Todd was “unfam iliar” with the Morgan City J ail’s adm inistrative rem edy procedure. Further, by Todd’s own evidence, Elizabeth Downey undertook to “discover” that the jail’s adm inistrative remedy procedure was not published with the state only after the Court’s granted sum m ary judgment in defendants’ favor. 6 Todd has not offered any reason why this evidence was unavailable at the tim e she filed her opposition to defendants’ m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. Thus, Todd’s “unexcused failure to present evidence available at the time of sum m ary judgm ent” does not warrant the relief she seeks. ICEE Distrib., Inc. v. J&J Snack Foods Corp., 445 F.3d 841, 847-48 (5th Cir. 20 0 6). Even if the Court were to consider the new evidence presented, the result would rem ain the sam e. Todd swears that she was “never inform ed of an adm inistrative rem edy procedure . . . or provided any [grievance] forms.”7 Todd’s sworn declaration does not refute defendants’ evidence that the form s were readily available to all inm ates who asked for one. 6 See R. Doc. 69-4 at 3. 7 R. Doc. 69-3 at 2. According to defendant Lieutenant Liner’s affidavit, the Morgan City J ail’s “Inm ate Orientation Guide” is “conspicuously posted in five areas throughout the jail for constant reference by the inmates.”8 This guide plainly reads, “Grievance form s can be obtained by any correctional officer. If an inm ate has a grievance that form m ust be filled out . . . .”9 As the Court explained in its order granting summ ary judgment, Todd’s ignorance of or “unfam iliar[ity]” with the jail’s adm inistrative remedy procedure does not excuse her failure to exhaust. See, e.g., Gonzales v. Craw ford, 419 F. App’x 522, 523 (5th Cir. 20 11). Todd continues to argue that the failure to exhaust is excusable when a defendant has “ham pered” an inm ate’s ability to utilize the adm inistrative remedy procedure, without any evidence that defendants have done so here. Further, Todd points to Morgan City’s failure to publish its adm inistrative remedy procedure in the Louisiana Register, which is legally irrelevant. Kondy lis v. Strain, 117 So. 3d 1255, 1257 (La. 20 13) (holding publication requirement does not apply to “political subdivisions”); see also La. Const. art. 6, § 44 (defining “political subdivision” as “a parish, m unicipality, and any other unit of local 8 R. Doc. 70 , Exhibit A. 9 Id. at Liner 7. governm ent . . . authorized by law to perform governm ental functions”). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the m otion. 14th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ day of March, 20 16. ____________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE
]]>
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.
