United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky
CHARLES R. SIMPSON III, SENIOR JUDGE
matter is before the court on motion of the Plaintiff,
William Ayers (“Ayers”), pro se, for
reconsideration of the memorandum opinion and order denying
the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider recusal and granting
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. For the
reasons stated, the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider will
court previously recounted the facts of this case at length
in its memorandum opinion entered on March 22, 2018. (DN 37.)
Essentially, this case concerns the conditions of Ayers'
probation as ordered by the Jefferson Circuit Court after his
conviction in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for the crime of
failing to file state tax returns. Ayers' Complaint
alleges that the arrest and subsequent detainment of the
Plaintiff on September 15, 2015 by his probation officer, for
the alleged non-compliance of parole conditions, amount to
violations of KRS § 439.553 and the administrative
guidelines on graduated sanctions. Ayers' Complaint
alleges that these violations resulted in deprivations of his
constitutional rights, among other claims.
Defendants jointly filed a partial motion for summary
judgment on Ayers' claims of Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(“Section 1983”). The court granted the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Ayers'
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against the Defendants
in their official capacities, as such claims are barred by
sovereign immunity. The court further granted the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the same
claims against the Defendants in their individual capacities,
finding that the parties were insulated from suit under
addressed in the court's March 22 memorandum opinion was
Ayers' motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate
Judge's order denying the Plaintiff's motion to
recuse. Because the court found that the Magistrate
Judge's finding was not clearly erroneous, Ayers'
motion for reconsideration on this issue was denied.
has moved for reconsideration both on the court's opinion
and order granting the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment and on its opinion and order denying the
Plaintiff's motion to reconsider. The Defendants did not
file a response to Ayers' motion, which is now ripe for
the court's review.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 59(e), a
party may move to alter or amend a judgment within
twenty-eight days of its entry. Rule 59(e) motions allow
district courts to correct their own errors, “sparing
the parties and appellate courts the burden of unnecessary
appellate proceedings.” Howard v. United
States, 533 F.3d 472, 475 (6th Cir. 2008). Granting a
Rule 59(e) motion is appropriate when there is: “(1) a
clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an
intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to
prevent manifest injustice.” Schlaud v.
Snyder, 785 F.3d 1119, 1124 (6th Cir. 2015) (citation
Rule 60(b) provides that a court “may relieve a party
or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding” for such reasons as: “mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;”
“fraud… misrepresentation, or misconduct by the
opposing party;” or “any other reason that
justifies relief.” Like Rule 59(e), the burden of
showing entitlement to relief under Rule 60(b) is on the
Rule 59(e) nor 60(b) is to be construed as allowing a party
to “reargue” a case. See Whitehead v.
Bowen, 301 Fed. App'x 484, 489 (6th Cir. 2008)
(finding that a Rule 59(e) motion is not “an
opportunity to reargue a case.”). “Motions to
alter or amend must clearly establish either a manifest error
of law or fact or must present newly discovered
evidence.” Fernandez v. Gulick, 2008 WL
4163252, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 4, 2008) (citing Turner v.
Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 2007 WL 122003 (5th. Cir.
2007)). Like Rule 59(e), “Rule 60(b) does not allow a
defeated litigant a second chance to convince the court to
rule in his or her favor by presenting new explanations,
legal theories, or proof.” Tyler v. Anderson,
749 F.3d 499, 509 (6th Cir. 2014).
Ayers filed his motion within 28 days of the entry of the
court's opinion and order, the court will consider his
motion under both Rules 59(e) and 60(b).
Ayers' successive motions ...