Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_06-cv-00122/USCOURTS-alnd-2_06-cv-00122-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALBERTO SERRANO, as

Administrator of the Estate

of JUAN-MANUEL MEDINASEVILLA, deceased, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF IRONDALE, et al.,

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

CIVIL ACTION NO.

06-AR-0122-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is the motion of plaintiffs Alberto Serrano

(“Serrano”) and Elizabeth Para de Medina (“Para de Medina”), to

alter, amend, or vacate the court’s order of December 12, 2006.

The fact that plaintiffs’ motion was filed more than 10 days after

the court’s December 12, 2006 order does not bar reconsideration of

the order under Rule 59(e) because the order did not constitute an

entry of judgment.

Upon reconsideration it does appear that plaintiffs allege in

their second amended (corrected) complaint that defendant City of

Irondale (“Irondale”) has an official custom or policy of failing

to treat individuals of Mexican or Hispanic origin with

constitutionally sufficient equality and that said custom or policy

was the force behind decedent’s death. See Doc. No. 38, at ¶ 28.

If plaintiffs can prove this allegation, they may be entitled to

relief against Irondale under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Leatherman v.

FILED

 2007 Jan-16 AM 10:25

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:06-cv-00122-WMA Document 54 Filed 01/16/07 Page 1 of 3
2

Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination, 507 U.S.

163, 166 (1993) (“a municipality can be sued under § 1983, but it

cannot be held liable unless a municipal policy or custom caused

the constitutional injury”). 

Plaintiffs do not identify which counts of their second

amended (corrected) complaint they want to be resurrected as

against Irondale. As discussed in its memorandum opinion of

December 5, 2006, Serrano’s only § 1983 claims against Irondale

were contained in Counts III, IV, V, and VI, and Para de Medina’s

only § 1983 claims against Irondale was in Count VI. For the

reasons discussed in the court’s December 5, 2006 memorandum

opinion, Serrano cannot sustain Counts III, IV, and VI against

Irondale even in light of Irondale’s alleged official custom or

policy of unequal treatment against Mexicans and/or Hispanics.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED only with respect to

Serrano’s Count V against Irondale and as to Para de Medina’s Count

VI against Irondale, and only to the extent those § 1983 claims are

based on plaintiffs’ allegation that Irondale has an official

custom or policy of not treating individuals of Mexican or Hispanic

origin in accordance with the requirements of the United States

Constitution. With respect to all other counts contained in

plaintiffs’ second amended (corrected) complaint, plaintiffs’

motion is DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the court’s December 12, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-00122-WMA Document 54 Filed 01/16/07 Page 2 of 3
3

order so that their claims are dismissed without prejudice “to

enable further amendment” is DENIED. This does not preclude future

amendment under appropriate circumstances. Plaintiffs are

admonished, however, to seek to further amend their complaint only

after they have exercised sound judgment in order to ensure that

any additional claims are cognizable and artfully plead. 

In light of the foregoing, defendants shall once again show

cause in writing by 4:30 p.m., January 24, 2007, why they should

not be disqualified from representing both of the two remaining

defendants, or to suggest which defendant they will continue to

represent. Defendants shall also answer Serrano’s Count V against

Irondale and Para de Medina’s Count VI against Irondale by 4:30

p.m., January 24, 2007.

DONE this 16 day of January, 2007. th

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00122-WMA Document 54 Filed 01/16/07 Page 3 of 3