UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JACK MILLER, et al.;

 Plaintiffs, 

v.

CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, et al.;

 Defendants.

Case No. SA-20-CV-00642-JKP

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. See 

ECF No. 103. The Defendants filed a response. See ECF No. 104. The Plaintiffs did not reply 

and the deadline to do so has passed. The motion is therefore ripe for ruling. For the reasons 

discussed herein, the Court DENIES the motion. See ECF No. 103.

BACKGROUND

This case is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action in which Jack Miller, a Second 

Amendment activist, and members of his family, challenge the Defendant officers’ arrest and 

prosecution of Miller, and the search of his family’s home, based on Miller’s alleged violation 

the day before of Texas Penal Code Section 46.03, for bringing a firearm into a court or an office 

utilized by a court. The undersigned entered final judgment in this matter on August 23, 2023, 

finding the Defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity and granting summary 

judgment in their favor. See ECF Nos. 101, 102. Specifically, the Court found insufficient 

evidence in the record to support the Plaintiffs’ contention that the gun Miller was carrying 

during his interaction with the Defendant officers was fake, nor did it find evidence the 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 105 Filed 11/13/23 Page 1 of 3
2

Defendant officers had reason to believe it was fake. Furthermore, the Court found Miller’s entry 

into the building’s lobby was sufficient to support the officers’ reasonable belief that Miller 

violated the statute. The Plaintiffs now ask the Court to amend its judgment based on arguments 

already presented and rejected on summary judgment. The Court, therefore, denies the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides a “motion to alter or amend a judgment 

must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Under 

Rule 59(e), relief is appropriate: (1) where there has been an intervening change in the 

controlling law; (2) where the movant presents newly discovered evidence that was previously 

unavailable; or (3) to correct a manifest error of law or fact. Id.; Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp., 

342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). A Rule 59(e) motion is not the proper vehicle for rehashing 

evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of 

judgment. Simon v. U.S., 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990). Rather, Rule 59(e) serves a 

narrow purpose and is an “extraordinary remedy” that should be “used sparingly.” Templet v. 

Hydrochem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004). Such a motion calls into question the 

correctness of the district court’s judgment, which “will not be disturbed in the absence of a 

showing that it has worked an injustice.” Id. at 478.

ANALYSIS

The Plaintiffs offer four reasons why they say the Court should alter or amend its 

judgment: (1) even if the Defendant officers had probable cause to obtain a search warrant, they 

exceeded the scope of the warrant; (2) the Defendant officers did not provide any facts linking 

evidence of a crime to the Miller residence; (3) the Defendant officers could not have had 

probable cause to believe Miller possessed a prohibited weapon because they did not know for 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 105 Filed 11/13/23 Page 2 of 3
3

certain the gun he was carrying was real; and (4) the Defendant officers targeted Miller in 

retaliation for his activism. With these arguments, the Plaintiffs attempt to rehash evidence and 

arguments presented, and rejected, on summary judgment. See ECF No. 89 at 35, 43, 48, 49. 

This is an inappropriate basis for a Rule 59(e) motion. See Simon, 891 F.2d at 1159. The motion 

is, therefore, denied.

CONCLUSIONS

The Court finds the Plaintiffs raise no issues giving rise to relief under Rule 59(e) and, 

accordingly, DENIES their motion to amend the judgment. See ECF No. 103.

It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 13th day of November, 2023.

JASON PULLIAM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 105 Filed 11/13/23 Page 3 of 3