Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

The Court notes that, in the instant motion, the plaintiffs refer to

1

Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 59 is not applicable

to the pending situation as it refers to motions for new trials and amendment

of judgments. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

CRYSTAL LEANN “CLARIDA”

FITZWATER, et al. PLAINTIFFS

v. Civil No. 05-3056

JOHNNY L. NICHOLS, et al. DEFENDANTS 

O R D E R

Now on this 5 day of January, 2007, the above referenced th

matter comes on for this Court’s consideration of Plaintiffs’

Crystal Leann “Clarida” Fitzwater, Jerald W. Fitzwater, and Alton

Louis Vaughn, Sr. Motion to Alter or Amend (document #178). The

Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as

follows: 

1. An Order was entered by this Court on December 20, 2006

(document #176). The Order disposed of several motions, provided

certain deadlines to the parties, scheduled this matter for trial,

and ordered the parties to take certain specific actions. 

2. On December 29, 2006, the plaintiffs filed the above

mentioned motion apparently seeking to alter or amend the Court’s

Order. 

3. The plaintiffs have historically filed needless motions

“rehashing” arguments previously rejected by this Court. And,

although Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides 1

for relief from an order or judgment under certain circumstances,

again, none of those circumstances apply in this situation. Rule

60 cannot be properly used to simply restate arguments which the

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 180 Filed 01/05/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
2

Court has already rejected and, again, the Court will not permit

plaintiffs to do that in this case. Accordingly, the Court finds

that plaintiffs’ motion offers neither law nor fact requiring

departure from the Court’s December 20, 2006 Order, and will,

therefore, deny the Plaintiffs’ Crystal Leann “Clarida” Fitzwater,

Jerald W. Fitzwater, and Alton Louis Vaughn, Sr. Motion to Alter

or Amend (document #178). 

4. The Court directs the plaintiffs to paragraph 10 of the

December 20, 2006 Order which states: 

“The Court again notes that:

* If plaintiffs fail to comply with the requirements of this

Order; OR 

* if they fail to pay the costs and attorneys fees for the

previously scheduled depositions; OR 

* if they fail to comply with future orders of the Court, it

is likely the Court will impose further sanctions which can -- and

likely will -- include dismissal of this action.” 

(Document #176)

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Crystal Leann

“Clarida” Fitzwater, Jerald W. Fitzwater, and Alton Louis Vaughn,

Sr. Motion to Alter or Amend (document #178) should be, and it

hereby is, denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 180 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>