IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES N. STRAWSER, et al., )

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0424-CG-C

)

LUTHER STRANGE, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General for 

the State of Alabama, et al.,

)

)

)

)

)

Defendants

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend 

judgment (Doc. 183), opposition thereto filed by Attorney General Luther Strange 

(Doc. 186), and Plaintiffs’ reply (Doc. 189). For the reasons explained below, the 

Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted.

Plaintiffs move to alter or amend the Final Judgment entered on June 7, 

2016, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). Plaintiffs state that when they sought final 

relief in this matter (Doc. 142), they inadvertently failed to request that the 

preliminary injunction against the Attorney General be made permanent. This 

Court entered final judgment against the other named and class defendants in this 

case, but did not include Attorney General Strange in the final judgment. (Doc. 

180). A review of the Second Amended Complaint clearly shows that Plaintiffs 

sought injunctive relief against Attorney General Strange. (Doc. 95). Additionally, 

Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 192 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Attorney General Strange filed opposition against the entry of a final judgment 

against him, arguing that a permanent injunction against the Attorney General was 

not needed and that the issue was moot. (Docs. 150, 166, 170). This Court found 

that the claims against Attorney General Strange were not moot and that the need 

for a permanent injunction is clear. (Doc. 179). After reviewing the pleadings and 

background of this case, the Court finds it was an oversight of both Plaintiffs and 

the Court that a permanent injunction against Attorney General Strange was not 

included in the final judgment entered in this case. 

In opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to amend Attorney General Strange 

attempts to rehash his previous arguments that the claims against him are moot 

and that a permanent injunction against him is unnecessary. The Court is not 

persuaded that its previous rulings should be reconsidered. Accordingly, the Court 

concludes that entry of a permanent injunction against Attorney General Strange is 

appropriate.

Attorney General Strange also complains that Plaintiffs have not met the 

standard for Rule 59(e) relief. The decision whether to alter or amend a judgment is 

“committed to the sound discretion of the district judge.” Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 

1106, 1137 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Reconsideration is characterized as 

an “extraordinary” remedy that the court should employ “sparingly.” Gougler v. 

Sirius Products, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1189 (S.D. Ala. 2005) (citation omitted). 

Generally courts have recognized three grounds that justify reconsidering an order: 

(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; 

Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 192 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 3
3

and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice. Summit Medical Center 

of Ala., Inc. v. Riley, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1355 (M.D. Ala. 2003) (citation omitted). 

In this case, there is no intervening change in controlling law or new evidence. 

However, the Court finds there is a need to correct clear error or manifest injustice. 

This Court found that a permanent injunction should be entered against the 

Attorney General but failed to include one in the Final Judgment. After review of 

the case, the Court now finds that omitting the Attorney General from the Final 

Judgment was a clear error that would be manifestly unjust if left uncorrected. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend judgment 

(Doc. 183), is GRANTED and an Amended Final Judgment consistent with the 

above conclusions will be entered by separate order.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 192 Filed 08/22/16 Page 3 of 3