* Nelson’s original complaint did not name Rockwall County as a

defendant but the Rockwall County Sheriff’s Department. Since it is too late to be

adding new defendants in the case, the court construes Nelson’s references to the

County to mean the Rockwall County Sheriff’s Department.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

STEVEN RAY NELSON,

Plaintiff,

VS.

HANK HAVENS and ROCKWALL

COUNTY,

Defendants.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:04-CV-0828-G

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is the motion of the plaintiff, Steven Ray Nelson (“Nelson”),

for a new trial on issues of fact as to his claims against defendants Hank Havens

(“Havens”) and Rockwall County (the “County”).*

 For the reasons stated below,

Nelson’s motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

This is a pro se prisoner case, in which Nelson sought -- pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (“section 1983”) -- monetary damages based on his allegations that Havens

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00828-G Document 108 Filed 04/22/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID 638
- 2 -

and the County, among other defendants, violated his constitutional rights. See

generally Complaint. Nelson alleged that Havens, and other officers of various state

and municipal law enforcement agencies, used excessive force in effecting his arrest. 

Complaint at 7-9. Citing the acts of Havens and the other officers, Nelson further

alleged that the municipalities for which each officer worked, including the County,

failed to adequately train the officers in their respective employ. Id. 

This court, adopting the recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge, dismissed Nelson’s claims against Havens and the County in light of the

United States Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 

Order, filed February 16, 2005. Judgment in favor of the County was entered on

February 17, 2005. Judgment, filed February 17, 2005. After the remaining claims

against Havens were disposed of on summary judgment, judgment was rendered in

his favor on March 8, 2005. Judgment, filed March 8, 2005. Nelson timely filed this

motion on March 9, 2005. Motion for a New Trial on Issues of Fact (“Motion to

Alter Judgment”) at 1. 

II. ANALYSIS

Because Nelson’s claims against Havens and the County were dismissed by this

court -- rather than proceeding to trial -- the court will treat his motion for a new trial

as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. Clancy v. Employers Health

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00828-G Document 108 Filed 04/22/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID 639
- 3 -

Insurance Company, 101 F.Supp.2d 463, 464 (E.D. La. 2000) (citing Ford Motor Credit

Company v. Bright, 34 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1994)). 

“A motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) must clearly establish

either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence and

cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before

the judgment issued.” Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567

(5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). “Relief under Rule 59(e) is also

appropriate when there has been an intervening change in the controlling law.” Id. 

In the instant motion, Nelson proffers the same argument he asserted in

response to Haven and the County’s motion to dismiss based on Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477, and in his objections to the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Findings”), on which this

court based its dismissal. Motion to Alter Judgment at 2-4. Specifically, he argues

that his excessive force claim against Havens includes actions by Havens which

occurred after the assault for which he was convicted. Id. Nelson has not established

a manifest error of law or fact, nor has he presented newly discovered evidence. 

Instead he is merely re-urging an argument that has already been considered and

rejected by this court. See Findings at 12-14; Motion to Alter Judgment at 2-4. 

Accordingly, he has failed to state a valid reason for this court to alter or amend its

judgment in favor of Havens and the County.

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00828-G Document 108 Filed 04/22/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID 640
- 4 -

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Nelson’s motion to alter or amend this court’s

judgment in favor of Havens and the County is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

April 21, 2005.

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00828-G Document 108 Filed 04/22/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID 641