Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00253/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00253-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD VINCENT WILLIAMS, :

AIS #239426, :

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : CIVIL ACTION 16-00253-KD-C

:

WILLIE MAIBEN, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and 

motion to amend complaint, with proposed amended complaint. (Doc. 17).

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff Ronald Vincent Williams (Williams) initiated this Section 1983 

action against the Defendants on May 31, 2016. (Doc. 1). Following the screening process 

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that Williams’ action be dismissed without prejudice prior to 

service because his claims are either frivolous or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. (Doc. 11). After allowing Williams to submit exhibits and a sworn statement (Docs. 

12, 14) and after a de novo determination of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation to which Williams objected (Doc. 13), on January 17, 2017 the undersigned 

adopted the Report and Recommendation and issued a final judgment, dismissing Williams’ 

action without prejudice. (Docs. 15, 16). On January 30, 2017, Williams filed a motion to 

reconsider and to amend his complaint, attaching a proposed amended complaint. (Doc. 17).

At the outset, because Williams’ motion was filed less than 28 days after entry of the 

final judgment, it is assessed under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a 

Case 1:16-cv-00253-KD-C Document 18 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 4
2

motion to alter or amend judgment. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel., Heesch v. Diagnostic Phy. Group, 

P.C., 2014 WL 1948326, *1 (S.D. Ala. May 15, 2014) (assessing a motion to reconsider under 

Rule 59 rather than Rule 60 as it was filed within 28 days after entry of the judgment). Grounds

for granting a Rule 59(e) motion consist of 1) newly-discovered evidence or 2) correcting 

manifest errors of law or fact. See generally Caraway v. Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Transp., 550 

Fed. Appx. 704 (11th Cir. 2013); Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2007). 

In his motion, Williams neither alleges nor submits new evidence. Williams also fails to 

assert the need to correct manifest errors of law or fact. Instead, Williams simply states that he 

wishes to “correct what is wrong” with his original complaint, referencing an “error [he] made[]”

and “for good cause.” (Doc. 17 at 1). Williams does not specify what is being “corrected” in his 

proposed amended complaint, and the fact remains that this action has already been dismissed. 

Moreover, even when the Court compares the original complaint with Williams’ proposed 

amended complaint, he is not making “corrections,” he is asserting new allegations. For 

example, a Fifth Amendment action by Ronald Vincent Williams/Ronnie Williams in Doc. 1 and 

a Fourteenth Amendment action by Ronald Vincent Williams in the proposed amended 

complaint (compare Doc. 1 at 1 and Doc. 17-1 at 1). Williams has also revised his explanation 

of his claim (compare Doc. 17-1 at 3 to Doc. 1 at 3), and adds four (4) pages of new handwritten 

allegations (Doc. 17-1 at 7-11). While Williams’ handwriting is difficult to read, the amended 

complaint appears to be Williams’ attempt to assert a new case against the Defendants (adding 

allegations to that which he previously asserted). The Court is unable to discern any “error” 

Williams endeavors to correct, post-judgment, in his original complaint.

Upon consideration, Plaintiff’s motion fails to establish newly discovered evidence or 

manifest errors of law or fact. At best, Williams reiterates arguments already made, which the 

Case 1:16-cv-00253-KD-C Document 18 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 4
3

Court already rejected. Rule 59(e) is not an appropriate vehicle to “relitigate old matters, raise 

argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Frantz 

v. Walled, 513 Fed. Appx. 815, 822 (11th Cir. 2013). See also e.g., McCorvey v. Weaver, 2014 

WL 6388515, *2 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 14, 2014). In short, Williams has not set forth any basis for 

Rule 59(e) relief. See, e.g., McCall v. Mitchem, 2012 WL 2946268, *1 (S.D. Ala. Jul. 19, 2012). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Williams’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 17) is DENIED.

With regard to Williams’ request to amend his complaint (Doc. 17), the Court finds that 

this request should be DENIED. While Rule 15 does not apply once the court has dismissed the 

complaint and entered final judgment, requiring a plaintiff, post-judgment, to instead seek leave 

to amend “under [Federal Civil Procedure] Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)(6),” Jacobs v. TempurPedic Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344-1345 (11th Cir. 2010), Rule 15(a)'s lenient amendment 

standards still govern the Court's analysis, Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 597 

n. 1 (5th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, “[w]hile a pro se litigant must generally be given an 

opportunity to amend his complaint, a...court need not allow any...amendment [that] would be 

futile.” Lee v. Alachua Cty., Fl., 461 Fed. Appx. 859, 860 (11th Cir. 2012). “Leave to amend a 

complaint is futile when the complaint as amended would still be properly dismissed...” Id. 

The Court cannot discern how any of the amended (added) allegations in Williams’ 

proposed amended complaint provide a basis for the relief he requests. Williams’ original 

Section 1983 complaint was dismissed because his claims were found to either be frivolous, as a 

matter of law, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 11). For 

example, as to Defendant Brown, the Court concluded that he was not acting under color of state 

law – one of the required elements -- and so Williams cannot pursue a claim against him in a 

Section 1983 action. (Doc. 11 at 4-5). As for Defendants Grant and Phillips, Williams’ claims 

Case 1:16-cv-00253-KD-C Document 18 Filed 02/03/17 Page 3 of 4
4

were found not to be cognizable as they arose in connection with these defendants’ roles as 

advocates for the state, and Williams’ claims were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 

477, 486-484 (1994) as well as deemed premature. (Id. at 5-7). Concerning Defendant Maiben, 

Williams’ claims were likewise found to be barred under Heck, and his claim to be released from 

confinement was noted as pursuable in habeas corpus, but not in a Section 1983 action. (Id. at 

8). Thus, based on the foregoing, any amended to Williams’ complaint would be futile such that 

his motion to amend (Doc. 17) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this the 3rd day of February 2017.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:16-cv-00253-KD-C Document 18 Filed 02/03/17 Page 4 of 4