Dockery v. U S Department Of Justice
2:09-cv-00225
S.D. Tex.Jun 6, 2012Background
- Dockery, a federal inmate, is incarcerated at USP McCreary (KY) and sues in SDTX; case filed under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against US, Deleon, Cabusao, Rivers-Graham; venue designated before a magistrate judge.
- Plaintiff alleged Deleon failed to protect him from an inmate attack and Cabusao and Rivers-Graham were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs after the attack.
- Plaintiff was injured when another inmate threw hot liquid on him; Deleon was assistant food service administrator; Cabusao initially assessed injuries; Rivers-Graham approved transfer to hospital two days after the burn.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on exhaustion and qualified immunity grounds on Dec 7, 2011; Plaintiff cross-moved Jan 9, 2012; summary judgment granted Apr 10, 2012, dismissing claims with prejudice.
- Plaintiff moved for relief under Rule 59(e) on May 8, 2012; motion treated under Rule 59(e) as timely; the court denied relief, holding exhaustion was not manifestly erroneous and finding no basis for revisiting qualified immunity or merits; judgment entered Jun 6, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of administrative exhaustion | Dockery exhausted in timely fashion due to injury delaying actions | Exhaustion did not occur timely; evidence did not show delay caused by injury | Exhaustion finding not manifest error; Rule 59(e) denied on exhaustion |
| Timeliness and applicability of Rule 59(e) relief | Motion filed within 28 days; should be reconsidered | Motion untimely or improper; no new evidence | Rule 59(e) applicable; relief denied on merits |
| Merits/qualified immunity reconsideration | Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity; issues of fact exist | Qualified immunity supported; no new evidence | No manifest error; merits dispute not revived; Rule 59(e) denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. Brookshire, 70 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 1995) (mailbox rule governs filing when placed in prison system; timely filing within 28 days)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1988) (pro se inmate filings relate to mailbox rule and timing)
- Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1990) (framework for distinguishing Rule 59(e) vs Rule 60(b) relief)
- Harcon Barge Co. v. D&G Boat Rentals, 784 F.2d 665 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc standard for reconsideration timing under pre-1993 rule)
- Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy; must be sparing)
- Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (context on reconsideration and new legal theories)