Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00360/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00360-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DOROTHY SMITH, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-0360-CG-B

) 

THE ALABAMA REPUBLICAN PARTY, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment and to amend

judgment (Doc. 46). Review of the record and plaintiff’s motion does not persuade the court that

judgment should be set aside or amended. The court previously denied plaintiff’s motions to set aside

(Doc. 42 & 43) and to clarify (Doc. 44) and is not swayed by this more recent motion. As stated in

this court’s previous order:

The decision whether to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) is

"committed to the sound discretion of the district judge.” Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d

1106, 1137 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting American Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess

& Assocs., 763 F.2d 1237, 1238-39 (11th Cir.1985)). The standard of review under

Rule 59(e) was summarized by this court in another case as follows:

A motion to alter or amend a judgment must demonstrate why the court

should reconsider its prior decision and “set forth facts or law of a

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

decision.”Cover v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 148 F.R.D. 294 (M.D.

Fla.1993)). Generally, courts have recognized three grounds justifying

reconsideration of an order: (1) an intervening change in controlling law;

(2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear

error or manifest injustice. Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A.,

153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D.Fla.1994); see also Kern-Tulare Water

Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.1986). 

Case 1:04-cv-00360-CG-B Document 47 Filed 06/06/05 Page 1 of 2
2

Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be

employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce

judicial resources. Pennsylvania Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Trabosh, 812

F.Supp. 522 (E.D.Pa.1992); Wendy's Int'l v. Nu-Cape Construction,

169 F.R.D. 680, 684-85 (M.D.Fla.1996).

Sonnier v. Computer Programs & Systems, Inc., 168 F.Supp.2d 1322, 1336 (S.D.

Ala. 2001) (quoting Alabama State Docks Department v. Water Quality Insurance

Syndicate, 1998 WL 1749263 (S.D.Ala.1998)(emphasis in original)). 

(Doc. 45).

 Plaintiff has not shown that the court should reconsider its prior decision. Neither clear error

nor manifest injustice has been demonstrated. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment and

to amend judgment (Doc. 46) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of June, 2005.

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00360-CG-B Document 47 Filed 06/06/05 Page 2 of 2