Robert Olszewski, Jr., et ux. v. Barry Hutchins, individually and as former selectman, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied the plaintiffs’ motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to reconsider dismissal of their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state-law claims. The court also declined to permit amendment of the complaint because the plaintiffs did not establish manifest error, manifest injustice, newly discovered evidence, or an intervening change in controlling law. The underlying action concerned alleged retaliation, speech restrictions, disability-related misconduct, and other claims involving a town selectman and the Town of Dover-Foxcroft.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs were not entitled to reconsideration because they identified no manifest error of law or fact, manifest injustice, newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, or intervening change in controlling law.
2. The court did not err in accepting plaintiffs' factual allegations and reasonable inferences as true while distinguishing those allegations from conclusory legal assertions.
3. The court did not err by declining to decide qualified immunity because the prior order had already determined that plaintiffs failed to state a federal cause of action.
4. The court was not required to evaluate substantive due process, Fourth Amendment, or Fifth Amendment theories advanced in briefing but not adequately alleged as claims in the amended complaint.
5. Plaintiffs could not obtain leave to amend because the Rule 59(e) motion failed and the final judgment therefore remained in place.
6. Even assuming plaintiffs could amend to allege that mutual no-contact orders had issued, the additional allegations would not change the prior dismissal of the federal claims.
7. Julie Olszewski's federal loss-of-consortium claim failed because it was derivative of Robert Olszewski's failed federal claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs established a basis for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) by showing manifest error of law or fact, manifest injustice, newly discovered evidence, or an intervening change in controlling law.
2. Whether the court erred by failing to address qualified immunity when it had already determined that plaintiffs failed to state a federal cause of action.
3. Whether the court was required to consider substantive due process, Fourth Amendment, or Fifth Amendment theories raised in briefing but not adequately pleaded in the amended complaint.
4. Whether plaintiffs could obtain leave to file a second amended complaint after entry of judgment.
5. Whether the proposed additional allegations concerning mutual no-contact orders would change the dismissal of plaintiffs' § 1983 claims.
6. Whether Julie Olszewski's loss-of-consortium claim survived dismissal of Robert Olszewski's underlying federal claims.

Disposition

dismissed