Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01181/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01181-1/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

PHILLIPPI S. LOWE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:05-CV-1181-WKW

) (WO)

RICHARD N. SMITH, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This case is before the Court on the plaintiff’s Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. #

22), filed on February 8, 2006, which is construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). “Rule 59(e) provides no specific grounds for relief, and ‘the

decision to alter or amend judgment is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge.’”

Taylor v. First North Am. Nat. Bank, 331 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1355 (M.D. Ala. 2004) (quoting

American Home Assur. Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1238-39 (11th Cir.

1985)). There are four recognized grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) motion: “(1) manifest errors

of law or fact upon which the judgment was based; (2) newly discovered or previously unavailable

evidence; (3) manifest injustice in the judgment; and (4) an intervening change in the controlling

law.” Id. The plaintiff has not offered any arguments or evidence to demonstrate that any of these

four grounds has been met in the present case. 

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for More Definite Statement

(Doc. # 22) is DENIED. The defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. # 23), filed on February 10, 2006,

is hereby DENIED as MOOT.

Case 2:05-cv-01181-WKW-SRW Document 24 Filed 03/20/06 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE this the 20 day of March, 2006. th

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01181-WKW-SRW Document 24 Filed 03/20/06 Page 2 of 2