Summary
This United States District Court memorandum and order addresses a pro se prisoner's motion seeking leave to respond to the court's prior denial of a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. The court reiterates that such motions are strictly limited to correcting clear error, presenting new evidence, or addressing changes in controlling law, and cannot be used to relitigate previously decided issues. After reviewing the plaintiff's arguments regarding his dental treatment claims, the court finds no basis to disturb its earlier dismissal and denies the motion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in denying plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e).
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief for alleged inadequate dental treatment under §1983.
Holdings
- The district court correctly denied relief from its prior order denying the motion to alter or amend judgment because the plaintiff failed to show an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error.
- The plaintiff is not entitled to relief because a mere disagreement over the type of dental treatment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment or a violation of his §1983 rights.
Key quotations
“A mere difference of opinion between the inmate and prison medical personnel regarding diagnosis or reasonable treatment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.” (at 2)
Factual background
Kevin Tamar Davis, an inmate at Lansing Correctional Facility, filed a civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging inadequate dental care. He sought relief through a motion to alter or amend the district court's judgment dismissing his claim.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a pro se §1983 action that was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff moved to alter or amend the judgment; the court denied that motion. Plaintiff appealed; the Tenth Circuit abated the appeal pending the district court's ruling on the motion to alter or amend. After denial, the circuit lifted the abatement. Plaintiff then moved for leave to respond; the district court granted the motion in part and denied relief from its prior order.