Dolenz v. Dallas Observer
3:14-cv-01188
N.D. Tex.May 2, 2014Background
- Dolenz alleges libel in a newspaper article and seeks to void his prior federal conviction for aiding and abetting mail fraud.
- The court recommended dismissal of the conviction challenge as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismissal of the defamation claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff objected; the objections were accepted and a judgment dismissing the complaint issued on April 17, 2014.
- Plaintiff filed a motion on April 29, 2014 seeking clarification, liberally construed as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.
- The court held that the motion merely reasserted prior arguments, offered no new evidence or change in law, and denied the motion.
- The recommendation DENYING the motion was signed on May 2, 2014 by United States Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 59(e) motion should be granted | Dolenz argues for relief from the judgment voiding the conviction and preserving the libel claim. | Defendants contends no intervening law change or new evidence; no manifest error. | Denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 563 (5th Cir. 2003) (Rule 59(e) standards and limitations)
- Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (refrains from rearguing previously raised theories)
- Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1993) (balance between finality and full adjudication)