Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30251 C on soli d a ted W i th N o. 08- 30479

N ATI ON ALI ST M OV EM EN T P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. TO W N O F JEN A; M U RP H Y M CM I LLI N , i ndivi dua l l y anda s M ay o ro f t he Tow n of Je na D efen da n t s - A pp el l ee s

A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 1: 07- C V

- 2168

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , B A R K S D A L E , an d G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l an tN ati on al i stM ovem en targu es th a t D ef en da n t

- A pp el l ee T ow n of J en a ( “Je n a ”) v io la ted i ts m em b ers’ F i rst, S eco n d , an d F ou rteen th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts b yre q u ir in git to c o m p ly w ith a to w n o r d in a n c e a n d p e r m it ap pl i c at i o n i n o r de rt o ho l d a pr o t e s t pa r ad e . The pa r t i e s ne go t i at e d a c o ns e nt United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30251

The permit application include d th e follo wingcon ditio n for c onsi deration : 1 I have b eenprovi ded acop y of th e Tow n of J en a’ s ordinance numb er 1 46 (sectio n 130) regardingpro cess io ns , m arch es, parades and demonstr atio ns, h ave re ad the ordin anc e and understan d th at I will be liablefor all damage to propertyor persons w hich may ari se out of or in conn ectio n with the afore mentione d event. Th e carrying of firearms is prohibite d durin g pe rm itte d march es . 2 j udg m e nt , w hi c h t he di s t r i c tc o ur ti s s ue d al o ng w i t h a s t at e m e nt e xp l ai ni ng t he
consen tj u dg m en t
. N ati on al i stM ovem en tnow al l eges err or i n t h e di st ri ct court’ s exp l an ati on of the con sent j u dg m en ta n d t h e d en i alof i t s t w o m ot i on s f or reco n sider a ti on , m oti on f or leav e to file a ff

i d a vits, an d m oti on to exte n d i ts att orney’ s pro ha c vi cea d mi s s i o n . F o rt h e f o l l o w i n gr e a s o n s , w e a f f i r m. I N at i onal i stM ove m ents oughtt o ho l d an ev entc al l ed “Jena Jus t i c e D ay”
a t t h e L a S a lle P a r is h C o u r th o u s e in J e n a , L o u is ia n a , o n J a n u a r y2 1 , 2 0 0 8
. T h is
ev en t w a s p l a n n ed to i n clu d e a t w o -m i l e p a ra d e to p rotes t t h e “Je n a S i x,” a group of

bl ack teenag ers aw aitin g t ri alf or t h e beati n g of

a w h i t e t een ager. N at i on a l i stM ove m entbe l i eve s t hat t he Je na Si x have r ec eived pre fer ent i al t reat m en tf

rom t h e t ow n of

Jen a. Jena att em pted t o requi re N ati on al i st M o v e m e n t t o co m p lyw ith T o w n o f J e n a O r d in a n c e # 1 4 6 a n d th e “P e r m it A pp l i cat i on f

or Processi on , M arch, P arad e or D em on st rat i on , ” w h i ch proh ibi t ed b e a r in gfir e a r m s . R e fu s in gto co m p ly , N a tio n a lis t M o v e m e n t b r o u g h t t h is s u it 1 for i nj u n cti ve , de cl a ra tory , an d oth er re l i ef f o r a lle g e d viol a ti on s of i ts F i rst, Se c o nd, a nd Fo ur t e e nt h Am e ndm e ntr i ght s . The a l l e ga t i o ns i n the c o m pl ai nt are l i m i t ed to t h e un const i t ut i o nali t y o f t he ordi n an ce and t h e perm i tapp l i cat i on an d d o not al l ege an y speci f i c i n ci den t s of

w rongd oi n g by Jen a of f i ci al s. At pr e t r i alc o nfe r e nc e s , N at i o nal i s tM o ve m e nta nd J e na ne go t i at e d a
c o ns e nto r de rnul l i f

yi ng t he o r di nanc e a nd p e r m i ta ppl i c at i o n r e qui r e m e nta nd
aw ardi n g N ati on al i stM ovem en tnom i n aldam ages an d att orney’ s f e e s. A f t er veri f yi n g t h at t h e parti es had agreed to t h e order and t h at no i ssues rem ai n edN o. 08- 30251

The conse nt judgm ent m andat ed thefollo wi ng: 2 1. Ordinance #146, of the Town of Jenaw illbe forthwithrep eal ed a s viol ative of th e First and Fourteenth Amen dments as written. 2. The “Permit Applic at io n for Processio n, March, Parade or Demo nstrationP ermit Application ,” pursuant to said ordinance, is w ithdrawn, as unenforceableand violativeof the Fir stan d Fourt ee nthAme n dm entsa s writt en . 3. Defe ndant wi ll not interfere with Pl aintiff’s exercise of its First Amen dment rights o n January 21, 200 8, in the Townof Jen a. 4. Plaintiff, Th e Nation ali st Movement , is the prevailing party in this liti gation

. 5. Defe ndants willpayattorney fees and costs of this litigation to Plaintiff as provi ded b y law and as de c id edb y t heC ourt . Plaintiff will submitit s request ther efor to the Court and Defendants will r espond. 6. Thereare no further issues betweenthe parties. Th e Plaintiff is awarded $1.0 0 (o ne doll ar) innom in al da ma ges . Neith erp artysh allr ec eive a nyo th erd a ma geso r in j u nctive reli ef

. 3 bet w ee n t hem , t he di st r i c tc our ti ss ued t he o r deras a “ C ons entO r deran d Fi nal Ju dg m en t
. ” Th ree d a y s l ater , t h e di st ri ctcourti ssued a st atem en tt i t l ed

2 “R e a s o n s fo rC o n s e n t O r d e ra n d F in a l J u d g m e n t” (th e “R ea son s”) cl a ri fyi n g th a t: [ N ] ot h i n g i n t h i s j u dg m en tshallbe deem ed to recogni ze an y requ est by p l ai n t i f

f or an y dem on st rat ion or pa rade p art i ci pa n tt o carr y w e ap o ns o f

a ny ki nd. Li ke w i s e , nei t he rdoe s t he j udg m e ntaf fe c tt he pol i ce pow er of t h e t ow n of Jen a an d Stat e of L ou i sia n a , w h ic h i ncl udes t he r i ghtand dut y t o pr ot ec tand pr om ot e t he publ i c s afet y. The Reas o ns a l s o c l ar i f i e d t hats i nc e a l li s s ue s w e r e r e s o l ve d b y t he c o ns e nt j udgm ent , N at i onal i stM ove m ent ’ s f i r ear m s c l ai m w as m oo t ed and di sm i ss ed by th e te r m s o f th e ju d g m e n t. Su bs equent l y, N at i onal i stM ove m entm ove d t o s t r i ke Reaso ns as an unc o ns t i t ut i o nala dv i s o r y o pi ni o n. The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni ed t hi s m o t i o n. N ati on al i stM ovem en tal so m oved t h e courtt o rec on si der t h e R eason s based on t h e al l egati on t h at t w o i n d ivid u al s, D avid D u pre an d D avid D u pre, Jr. , w ere p roh ibi t ed f

r om bear i ng f

i r ear m s at t he par ade, and al so m ove d f or l eav e to sub m i tt h e D u pres’af f i da vi t s. Th e di st ri ctcourtden i ed both m ot i on s based onN o. 08- 30251

Thou gha que stionexists as to w heth er we havejuri sdictio n to hear an appeal from 3 a statement of reaso ns expl aining a conse nt ju dgment, w e n eed not answer this que stionh ere. Bec auseNation ali st Movement argu es that the district court improperlyamended the conse nt j u dgme nt, o ur j uri sdictioni s p ro pe r. SeeBa yo uF leet, I n c. v . Alexan der, 234 F.3 d 852 , 858(5th Cir. 200 0) (r eviewin g a clai m that th e di strict improperlyame nded a c onsent j udgment for ab u seof di scretion). 4 t he fac tt hatt he D upr e s w e r e notm e m be r s of N at i o nal i s tM o ve m e nta nd t hus
w ere n ot p a rti es to th e li ti ga ti on or a ffe cted by the con sen t j u d gm en t. N ex t, N at i o nal i s tM o ve m e ntf i l e d a s e c o nd m o t i o n t o r e c o ns i de r , s e e ki ng t o ha ve t he
consen torder vacat ed or a m en ded forthe sam e reason s as the earl i er m ot i on s. T h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed thi s m ot i on as an a t t em pt t o rehash previ ou sl y re s ol ved is s u e s a n d to c r e a te a n e w ca s e p o s t-ju d g m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o p a r tia lly den i ed N ati on al i st M ovem en t ’ s m ot i on t o extend its a ttor n ey’ s pro ha c vi ce ad m i ssi on . Sp eci f

i cal l y, t h e di st ri ctcourtl i m i t ed the att orne y’ s c on t i n u ed ad m i s s i o n pro h ac vi ce to a tt o r n e y ’ s fe e is s u e s o n lya n d re a ffir m e d th a t t h e s o le i s s ue r e m ai ni ng i n t he l i t i ga t i o n was a t t o r ne y’ s fe e s . Thi s a ppe alf o l l o w e d. I I A N a tion a li st M o v e m e n t d o e s n o t a ll e g e e rr o r i n th e co n se n t ju d g m e n t itse lf, hav i n g c o n c e d e d t h a t i t a g r e e d t o t h e c o n s e n t j u d g m e n t a n d v e r i f i e d t o t he di s t r i c tcou rt t hatt he c o ns e ntj udg m e ntr e s o l ve d a l li s s ue s i n t he l i t i ga t i o n. In stea d , N a ti on a l i st M ov em en t all eg es th a t t h e d i stri ct c o u rt ab u sed i ts di s c r e t i o n w he n i ti s s ue d t he Rea s o ns b e c aus e t he Rea s o ns a l t e r e d t he c o ns e nt j u d gm en t. N a ti on a l i st M ov em e n t ch a ra cterizes th e R ea son s as an “ex p a rte

3 att em pt t o am en d the ord e r” re su l t i n g i n a post- j u dg m en tm odi f i cat i on , w h i ch i tc l ai m s vi ol at ed i t s r i ghtt o due pro c es s and b ecam e a n un c ons t i t ut i onal ad vi sory opi n i on . M odi f i cat i on s of

consent j u dg m en t s are revi ew ed f or abu se of d is c r e tio n . B ayou Fl eet, I n c. v. A l exan d er , 2 3 4 F .3 d 8 5 2 , 8 5 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ).N o. 08- 30251

5 N at i onal i stM ove m ent ’ s ar gum entfai l s bec ause t he di st r i c tc our tw as
w i t h i n i t s authori t y t o i ssue t h e reasons an d because t h e reasons di d n otal t er th e m u tu a l l y a gr ee d -up on con sen t ord er. W e h a ve h eld th a t: B eca u se a con sen t j u d gm en t h a s a con ti n u i n g [e]f fect on the ri gh ts o f lit ig a n t s , c o u r t s a r e r e q u ir e d t o a s c e r t a in w h e t h e r t h e p a r t i e s [’] agreem en trepresents a reasonab l e fact u alan d l egal determ i n ati on based on t h e fact s of

the record[

. ] Aconsent decree m u stari se f rom t h e pl ead ed case an d f u rt h er t h e obj ect i ves of t h e l aw up o n w h i ch t h e com pl ai n t i s based. W h en l i t i gan t s r each a set t l em en tt h at al so [ a] f fect s t h i rd pa rt i es, t h e courtm u stbe sat i sf i ed that the ef

fecton t he m i s ne i t he runr e as o nab l e no rpr o s c r ibe d.
Id

. (i n t erna lci t ati on s and qu ot ati on m arks om i t t ed). A cc o rd i n gl y, di st ri ct
c o u rts h a ve a d u ty to en su re th a t a con sen t j u d gm en t i s a re a son a b le determ i n ati on based on t h e rec ord, ari ses f rom t h e pl ead e d c ase, an d f u rt h ers t he o bj e c t i ve s o f

t he l aw upo n whi c h t he c o m pl ai nti s b as e d. H e r e , t he di s t r i c tc o ur te xp l ai ne d t hati ti s s ue d t he r e as o ns t o c l ar i f y t he fac tt hata l li s s ue s b et w ee n t he pa r t i e s w e r e r e s o l ve d a nd t o e xp l ai n ho w t he
con sen t j u d gm en t do ve tail ed w i th the f i r e a r m s c l a i m raised i n the com p l a i n t. Al t ho ugh t he di s t r i c t c o ur t r e c e i ve d as s ur anc e s f r o m bo t h s i de s t hatt he c o ns e nt j udg m e ntdi s po s e d o f a l li s s ue s , t h e d i st r i c tc o ur tw as c o nc e r ne d t hatt he
c o ns e ntj udg m e ntm i ghtb e unc l e ars i nc e i tdi d no tm e nt i o n t he Se c o nd Am e ndm e ntc l ai m de s pi t e t he fac t t hat t hi s c l ai m had be e n a m aj o rpa r to f t he p a r tie s ’d is p u te
. A c c o r d in g ly , th e p u r p o s e o f th e s ta te d r e a s o n s w a s to “e x p la in t he s e e m i ng i nc o ns i s t e nc y r egard i n g t h e Secon d A m en dm en ti ssues rai s e d b y t he pl ai nt i f f t hr o ugh o utt he c o nt e s t e d c o ur s e o f t hi s l i t i ga t i o n a nd t he c o ns e nt j udg m e nt ’ s t o t als i l e nc e o n t ho s e i s s ue s . ” The r e as o ns w e r e ne c e s s ar y, a c c o r di ng t o t h e di st ri ctcourt , t o cl ari f y h ow t h e consent j u dg m en tarose f rom t h e pl ead ed
c as e a nd f

ur t he r e d t he o bj e c t i ve s o f t he va r i o us l aws t hatN at i o nal i s tM o ve m e nt ci ted i n i ts com p l a i n t.N o. 08- 30251

6 M o r e o ve r , i ti s c l e art hatt he s t at e d r e as o ns di d nota l t e rt he c o ns e nt j udg m e nt
. The c o nsent j udg m e ntr e pe al e d Or di nanc e # 14 6 as v i o l at i ve o f t he F i rstan d F ou rt een t h A m en dm en t s, w i t h drew t h e “ P erm i tA pp l i cat i on f or P roces si on , M arch, P arad e or D em on st rat i on ” a s u n en f orceabl e an d vi ol ative of t h e F i rstan d F ou rt een t h A m en d m e n ts, an d p rom i sed t h at Jena w ou l d n ot i n t erf ere w i t h N ati on al i stM ovem en t ’ s exerc i se of i t s Fir stA m en dm en tri gh t s on January 21, 2008 ( t he dat e of t he par ade)

. Th e di st r i c t c our t ’ s expl anat i on t hat t he c ons entj udgm entdi d n otdi r ec t l y addres s t he Sec ond A m endm entc l ai m w as si m pl y a tr u e st atem en trega rd in g w h at w as not i n t h e j u dg m en t

— i tdi d n ot pu rport t o ad d t o, sub t ractf rom , or al t er t h e j u dg m en ti n an y w ay. N ati on al i st M ovem en tcann otcl ai m err or i n the di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof t h ei r f i rearm s c la im s in c e th e yv e r ifie d , a s is re q u ir e d to o b ta in a co n s e n t ju d g m e n t, th a t a ll i ss ues w er e r es ol ved by t he o r der

. Fi nal l y, t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s st at em entt hat
n ot h i n g i n t h e j u d g m e n t r e cog n i zed an y ri gh t s t o bear arm s att h e parad e or i n t erf ered w i t h Jen a’ s pol i ce pow ers al so m erel y cl ari f i ed a factapp aren tf rom t he c o ns e nto r de ri t s e l f, w hi c h i s s i l e nta s t o t he s e i s s ue s . W e t he r e f o r e f i nd n o ab us e o f

di s c r e t i o n i n t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s s t at e d r e as o ns f o rt he c o ns e nt j u d gm en t. B N ati on al i stM ovem en t ’ s r em ai n i n g cl ai m s al l ege errori n t h e di st ri ct
c o ur t ’ s de ni al s o f

i t s m o t i o ns t o re c o ns i de r , m o t i o n fo rl e av e t o f i l e a f f i da vi t s , a nd
m o tion to extend i t s at t orney’ s pro ha c vi cea dm i s s i o n. N at i o nal i s tM o ve m e nt fi l ed the tw o m oti on s f or re con sider a ti on an d a m oti on f or leav e to fi l e a ff

i d a vits i n an ef f or tt o l i ti gate i t s al l egat i on t hat “ D ef endant s pro hi bi t ed t w o w oul d- be pa r ad e r s , D av i d Dupr e a nd Dav i d Dupr e , J r . , f rom b e ar i ng f

i r e ar m s , t he r e i n,
n a m e lya rif

le a n d a s h o tg u n , o rfr o m e v e n re m o v in gth e s a m e fr o m th e ir
ve hi c l e . ” Thi s al l e ga t i o n was no ti n t he pl e ad i ngs a nd was no ta ddr e s s e d i n a ny
w ay i n t h e consent j u dg m en t
. T h e d i st ri ctcou rtd en i ed t h ese m ot i on s becauseN o. 08- 30251

7 t h e D u pres w ere not m em bers of N a tiona l i stM ovem en tan d accordi n gl y w ere
n o t c o v e r e d b yth e co n s e n t ju d g m e n t. W e r evi ew a di st r i c tc our t ’ s deni a l o f a F ED . R . C IV
. P

. 59(e) m ot i on f or ab us e o f

di scr et i on . Sc hi l l e rv . Phy s i c i ans Res

. G r o up I nc . , 342 F. 3d 563, 566 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). M o tion s fo r r e co n sid e ra tion a re m a d e p u rs u a n t to R u le 5 9 (e ),
w h ic h a llo w s a m o tio n to a lte r o ra m e n d a ju d g m e n t. S ee Pa tin v. A lli ed S ig n a l, I nc ., 7 7 F .3 d 7 8 2 , 7 8 5 n .1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s co n s id e r a b le d iscr e tion w h e n d e cid in ga R u le 5 9 (e) m o tion , a n d th e n a r r o w p u r p o se of a
m ot i on f

or r econsi derati on i s t o al l ow a party t o corr ect m an i fest error s of l aw or fa c t o rp r e s e n t n e w lyd is c o v e r e d e v id e n c e . S ee W alt m an v. I

n t ’lPap er Co. , 875 F

. 2 d 46 8 , 47 3 ( 5 th C i r. 19 8 9 ). M oti on s f or re con sider a ti on sh ou l d n ot be u sed to
ra i se a rg u m en ts th a t co u l d h a ve b ee n m a d e b efore th e en try of j u d gm en t or to
r e -u r g e m a tt e r s th a t h a v e a lr e a d y b e e n a d v a n c e d b y a p a r ty
. S ee id

. at473- 74. H e r e , t he pr o bl e m i s n ot m erel y t hatt he m at e r i al s a dv anc e d i n t he
m o t i o ns f

o rr e c o ns i de r at i o n coul d o rs ho ul d ha ve b e e n b r o ugh te ar l i e r— t he pr o bl e m i s t hatt he i s s u es rai sed ar e no tpr o pe r l y c o nne c t e d t o t he und e r l yi ng pr o c e e di ngs . Al lo f

t he c l ai m s r ai s e d i n t he m o t i o ns f o rr e c o ns i de r at i o n a m o unt t o e nt i r e l y ne w a l l e ga t i o ns t hata r e o ut s i de t he sco pe o f t he pl e ad i ngs a nd beyon d the reach of t h e consent j u dg m en t
. A s i n di cat ed i n th e evi den ce prof fered by N ati on al i stM ovem en tt o sup port i t s al l egati on s, t h e D u pres w ere no tm e m be r s o f

N at i o nal i s tM o ve m e nt
. The r e f o r e , t he y w e r e no tc o ve r e d b y t he
c o n s e n tju d g m e n t ’s m a n d a t e th a t“D e fe n d a n tw il l n o tin t e r fe r e w it h P la in t if f’s
e x e r c is e o f its F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts o n J a n u a r y2 1 , 2 0 0 8 .” T h e p le a d in g s d id
n otal l ege an y ac ts o f w rongd oi n g by Jen a of f i ci al s, so even i f

t h e D u pres w ere
m e m b e r s o f N a tio n a lis t M o v e m e n t t h is a lle g e d co n d u c t w o u l d s i m p l yn o t fa ll
u n d er th e p l ea d ed fa cts of th e com p l a i n t. M ore ov er, th e con sen t j u d gm en t on i ts fa ce i s Secon d A m en dm en tneu t ral

. W h i l e i trepeal s t h e perm i tapp l i cat i on requ i rem en ti n cl u di n g t h e prohibi t i on of f i rearm s, t h e consent j u dg m en tm ak esN o. 08- 30251

8 absol u t el y n o st atem en tregardi n g an i n di vi du al ’ s ri gh t t o bear arm s at parades i n J e na. Ac c o r di ngl y, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no ta bus e i t s di sc r e t i o n i n de nyi ng t h e m ot i on s t o reconsi der becau se the fact s all eged i n vol ve n on - pa rt i es and are ou t si de the scope of

t h e pl ead i n gs. F u rt h e r m o r e , N at i o nal i s tM o ve m e ntha s fai l e d t o a l l e ge a n e r r o ri n t he d i stri ct cou rt’ s p a rti a lde n i a l o f N a ti on a l i st M ov em en t’ s m oti on to exte n d i ts att orney’ s pro ha c vi ce ad m i ssi on . In pa rt i al l y den yi n g t h e m ot i on , t h e di st ri ct
c o u r t lim ited th e ex te n sio n on ly to th e a tto rn e y ’ s o n g o in gcla im for a tto rn e y ’s fe e s . N o t ab l y, t hi s r ul i ng w as m ade i n M ay2 00 8— t hr e e m o nt hs a f t e rt he di st r i ct cou rt ha d de n i ed the seco n d m oti on f or re con sider a ti on an d aff i r m ed t hat

“AL L m at t e r s i n t hi s c ase les s and e xc e ptf o rt he c l ai m f

o ra t t o r ne y’ s fe e s a nd cost s . . . are c on cl u ded

. ” Si n ce there a re n o on goi n g m att ers i n the di st ri ctcourt
e x c e p tfo ra t t o r n e y ’s fe e s , t h e d is t r ic tc o u r td id n o te r rin lim it in gth e a t t o r n e y ’s pro ha c vi ceadm i ssi on t o t h i s i ssue. III Fo rt h e f

o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , we AF FI RM

.