Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denies Robert V. Dunn’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. The court also denies as moot Dunn’s motion for status and determination of the pending motion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Dunn demonstrated a manifest error of law or fact or newly discovered evidence warranting relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
- Whether Dunn's motion for status and determination of the Rule 59(e) motion should be denied as moot after the Court ruled on the motion to alter or amend.
Holdings
- The Court denied Dunn's motion to alter or amend the judgment because the prior order and judgment did not constitute a manifest error of law or fact, and the opinion identified no basis for Rule 59(e) relief.
- The Court denied Dunn's motion for status and determination as moot because the Court's order resolved the pending motion to alter or amend.
Key quotations
“Rule 59 motions are disfavored and “serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or [presenting] newly discovered evidence.””
Factual background
The opinion concerns Dunn's previously dismissed complaint against a circuit court clerk and other defendants. The Court had dismissed the complaint without prejudice in an April 29, 2025 order and judgment. Dunn sought alteration or amendment of that judgment, but the Court found no manifest error of law or fact warranting relief.
Procedural history
The Court had previously dismissed Dunn's complaint without prejudice and entered an order and judgment on April 29, 2025. Dunn then moved to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e). The Court denied that motion, finding no manifest error of law or fact, and denied the motion for status as moot.