Boudreaux v. NOPD Officer Prevost, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Roger Boudreaux’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. The court held that he had not shown a manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or another basis warranting reconsideration.

Holdings

1. A Rule 59(e) motion should be granted only when the movant clearly establishes a manifest error of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence; plaintiff failed to make that showing.
2. Plaintiff's post-judgment reference to a Louisiana statute did not establish error because he pleaded only a § 1983 claim, and § 1983 does not provide a remedy for violations of state statutes.
3. Plaintiff's identification of NOPD policies did not establish Rule 59(e) error because he did not show a policy or custom that was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violations or otherwise overcome the court's qualified-immunity determination.
4. Plaintiff failed to establish error in the denial of a second opportunity to amend because he did not address the court's determination that amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff established a manifest error of law or fact or newly discovered evidence warranting relief under Rule 59(e).
2. Whether plaintiff's identification of a Louisiana statute and NOPD policies demonstrated error in the prior dismissal of his § 1983 claims.
3. Whether the denial of a second opportunity to amend the complaint was erroneous when amendment had been determined to be futile.

Disposition

other