Bryant v. Miss. Div. of Medicaid
| Decision Date | 25 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4:13-CV-00123-DMB-SAA,4:13-CV-00123-DMB-SAA |
| Parties | SAMANTHA BRYANT PLAINTIFF v. MISSISSIPPI DIVISION OF MEDICAID, and DEBORAH CARTER WOODS, in Her Individual Capacity DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
By order dated July 29, 2014, the Court dismissed Defendant Deborah Carter Woods, in her individual capacity, from this lawsuit based on Plaintiff Samantha Bryant's failure to state a claim against Woods under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. Specifically, in granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court found that: (1) individual employees cannot be held liable under Title VII; (2) Plaintiff abandoned her claim under § 1981; (3) Plaintiff did not state a First Amendment retaliation claim against Woods under § 1983 because she failed to allege causation as to Woods; and (4) Plaintiff did not state a claim against Woods under § 1983 for race discrimination and/or equal protection violation because she failed to allege that Woods singled out a particular group for disparate treatment.
On August 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration, challenging the Court's findings and arguing that Woods should not have been dismissed from the case. Woods opposes the motion and argues that it should be denied because Plaintiff fails to establish adequate grounds for reconsideration. Plaintiff's motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for decision. Upon due consideration and for the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion is denied.
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly provide for motions to reconsider a district court's rulings. However, the Fifth Circuit has held that a district court may entertain a motion to reconsider and should treat one as either a motion to "alter or amend" under Rule 59(e) or a motion for "relief from judgment" under Rule 60(b). Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 1991); Fletcher v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 510, 511 (5th Cir. 2000). If a motion to reconsider is filed within twenty-eight days after entry of the judgment upon which reconsideration is sought, the motion falls under Rule 59(e); if it is filed after that time, the motion falls under Rule 60(b). Fletcher, 210 F.3d at 511; Towns v. Northeast Miss. Elec. Power Ass'n, No. 3:09-cv-136-M-A, 2011 WL 3267887, at *1 (N.D. Miss. July 29, 2011). Plaintiff filed the instant motion1 within twenty-eight days after entry of the order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss; therefore, the Court treats Plaintiff's motion as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.
Under Rule 59(e), a court should only reconsider its ruling in a case if there is: (1) new evidence not previously available; (2) an intervening change in controlling law; or (3) a need to prevent manifest injustice. See Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 (5th Cir. 2012); In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002); Molina v. Equistar Chems. LP, 261 F. App'x 729, 733 (5th Cir. 2008); Brown v. Miss. Co-op Extension Serv., 89 F. App'x 437, 439 (5th Cir. 2004); Towns, 2011 WL 3267887, at *1 (citing Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990)). Rule 59(e) motions are "not theproper vehicle[s] for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment." Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)). Rather, such motions "are used to 'call[] into question the correctness of a judgment' and are 'properly invoked to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.'" In re Rodriguez, 695 F.3d 360, 371 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)).
Plaintiff does not argue that there is new evidence or that there has been an intervening change in case law. Instead, Plaintiff focuses on what she perceives as manifest injustice. In support of her motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that: (1) she spoke as a private citizen on a matter of public concern in her letter to Woods; (2) the Court applied the wrong standard of review in ruling on the motion to dismiss; (3) she sufficiently pleaded the cat's paw exception such that she stated a valid claim for First Amendment retaliation; (4) the Court should have allowed discovery before ruling on the motion to dismiss; and (5) use of the term "monkey" is an intentional discriminatory term that supports her equal protection claim. The Court will address each of these arguments to determine whether reconsideration is appropriate.
Plaintiff first challenges the Court's findings on the capacity in which she spoke when she sent Woods a letter complaining about discrimination, retaliation, and threatening remarks to which she had allegedly been subjected during her employment with Mississippi Division of Medicaid ("MSDM"). Plaintiff argues that she spoke as a private citizen expressing a matter of public concern rather than as an employee expressing personal grievances when she sent theletter to Woods, the EEOC, and two attorneys. Pl.'s Mem. Brief [27] at 6-7. Plaintiff contends that her "act of reporting Defendant Wood's [sic] actions out to an independent agency and independent officials was not a part of her official task ... and said speech constitutes speech as a citizen protected under the First Amendment." Id. at 7.
While Plaintiff argues that the Court found that she spoke as an employee rather than a citizen in her complaint letter, the Court made no such finding in its order. Instead, the Court considered "for purposes of its analysis that Plaintiff spoke to Woods as a citizen rather than an employee[.]" Order [20] at 12. The Court assumed that "because the letter put Woods on notice that Plaintiff intended to contact 'government controlled Civil Rights agencies' and giving such notice was not part of Plaintiff's job responsibilities," she spoke as a citizen. Id. at 11. Since the Plaintiff seeks reconsideration on a finding the Court never made, her motion on this issue lacks merit and is denied.
Plaintiff next argues that the Court did not "accept all of Plaintiff's allegations as true and [] draw all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff's favor" when ruling on the motion to dismiss. Pl.'s Mem. Brief [27] at 4. Plaintiff specifically argues that the Court drew an inference from her letter to Woods in isolation rather than drawing all inferences in her favor from the complaint and letter collectively. Id. at 11. The portion of the order upon which Plaintiff bases her argument provides:
Although, in her letter, Plaintiff states that Woods subjected her to discrimination and retaliation, she does not state in the letter that the alleged conduct was based on race. Therefore, it does not appear that the speech at issue reported racial discrimination.
Order [20] at 11. Plaintiff contends that the Court concluded "in a vacuum" that her speech did not report racial discrimination because the letter to Woods failed to state that the allegeddiscriminatory conduct was based on race. Pl.'s Mem. Brief [27] at 10. Plaintiff argues that had the Court considered the letter and complaint together, it would have inferred that Plaintiff referred to race in the letter. Id. at 11.
Contrary to Plaintiff's argument, the Court is only required to accept all "well-pleaded" facts as true. See Breton Energy, LLC v. Mariner Energy Res., Inc., 764 F.3d 394, 397 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Toy v. Holder, 714 F.3d 881, 883 (5th Cir. 2013)). "The ultimate question in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the complaint states a valid claim when all well-pleaded facts are assumed true and are viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). "However, those facts, 'taken as true, [must] state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen, 681 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Amacker v. Renaissance Asset Mgmt., LLC, 657 F.3d 252, 254 (5th Cir. 2011)).
The Court accepted all well-pleaded facts as true and drew all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff when it ruled on Defendants' motion to dismiss. The specific portion of the order that Plaintiff challenges was not the reason the Court dismissed her retaliation claim. Despite noting that Plaintiff's letter did not appear to report racial discrimination, the Court did not reach the issue of whether Plaintiff's speech in the letter involved a matter of public concern. Thus, Plaintiff's argument that the Court reached a conclusion regarding her speech "in a vacuum," is simply not true. See Pl.'s Mem. Brief [27] at 10. Indeed, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for First Amendment retaliation because Plaintiff did not allege that Woods made the final decision to terminate her or that an exception applies to hold Woodsliable for the termination.2 Because the Court applied the proper standard of review to Defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiff's request for reconsideration on this ground is denied.
Next, Plaintiff challenges the Court's finding that she failed to allege causation as to Woods to state a claim against her for First Amendment retaliation. Plaintiff argues that she sufficiently pleaded the cat's paw exception such that Woods can be held liable for First Amendment retaliation. Plaintiff also argues that the proximity in time between her complaint letter and her termination support causation as to Woods, and the Court should have denied Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to this claim.
In finding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Woods for retaliation, the Court adhered to Fifth Circuit precedent which provides that "only final decision-makers may be held liable for First...
To continue reading
Request your trial