United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
A. WOODCOCK, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court denies a plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of
an order of summary judgment because he failed to demonstrate
that the order contains a manifest error of law or fact. The
Court also rejects the plaintiff's demand that the Court
recuse itself from his cases because he has not met the
standards for recusal.
1, 2013, James Stile filed a § 1983 suit alleging
various constitutional violations and state tort claims
against Somerset County and numerous individual defendants
employed at the Somerset County Jail. Compl. (ECF
No. 1). On August 14, 2014, Mr. Stile filed an Amended
Complaint with authorization of this Court, except as to the
“medical defendants” and corrections officer
Simonds. Am. Compl. Final (ECF No. 92) (Final
Compl.); Order (ECF No. 86).
September 28, 2018, the Court granted in part and dismissed
in part the Defendant's respective motions for summary
judgment, dismissing most but not all of Mr. Stile's
claims. Order on Defs.' Mots. for Summ. J. and
Pl.'s Related Mots. (ECF No. 601) (Somerset
County Order). On October 15, 2018, Mr. Stile filed a
motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal,
Mot. for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Pending Outcome of Pl. Mot. for Recons. of J. Order of the
Court (ECF No. 607), which the Court denied October 26,
2018. Order on Mots. to Extend Time Within Which to File
Notices of Appeal (ECF No. 618). On October 29, 2018,
Mr. Stile filed a notice of appeal. Notice of Appeal
(ECF No. 622).
days later, on November 1, 2018, Mr. Stile filed his motion
for reconsideration. Mot. for Recons. on Order of Summ.
J. of Court (ECF No. 626) (Pl.'s Mot.). On
November 16, 2018, Somerset County and former Somerset County
Sheriff Barry DeLong filed their response to Mr. Stile's
motion for reconsideration. Defs.' Somerset County
and Delong's Obj. to Pl.'s Mot. for Recons. (ECF
No. 628) (Somerset County Opp'n). On November
19, 2018, the Defendants, except Somerset County, Delong,
Allen, Mayhew, Welch, Jacques, Plourd, and Kline, filed their
opposition to Mr. Stile's motion for reconsideration.
Defs.' Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Recon.
(ECF No. 629) (Majority Defendants' Opp'n).
The next day, Defendant Allen filed his opposition to Mr.
Stile's motion for reconsideration. Def. David
Allen's Obj. to Pl.'s Mot. for Recons. (ECF No.
630) (Def. Allen Opp'n).
Mr. Stile titles his motion a motion for reconsideration, he
does not identify under what rule he brings his motion. The
Somerset County Order was not a “final judgment”
because it did not resolve all the claims by all the parties
in this suit. See Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U.S. 406,
419 (2008) (quoting Catlin v. United States, 324
U.S. 229, 233 (1945) (“A final judgment is one which
ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the
court to do but execute the judgment”) (internal
quotation marks omitted)); Guillemard-Ginorio v.
Contreras-Gomez, 490 F.3d 31, 37 n.4 (1st Cir. 2007)
(acknowledging that, absent certification under Fed.R.Civ.P.
54, an order granting partial summary judgment does not
satisfy the requirements for appellate jurisdiction”);
Widi v. McNeil, No. 2:12-cv-00188-JAW, 2014 WL
4987969, *5 (D. Me. Oct. 7, 2014). As a result, Mr.
Stile's motion cannot be brought under either Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60 because the Somerset
County Order was not a final judgment, and the Court has not
directed entry of a final judgment on any claims pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Barrows v.
Resolution Trust Corp., 39 F.3d 1166, at *3 (1st Cir.
1994) (table opinion) (Rule 59(e) “applies only to
final judgments”); Farr Man & Co. v. M/V
Rozita, 903 F.2d 871, 874 (1st Cir. 1990) (“Rule
60 applies only to final judgments”); Widi,
2014 WL 4987969, at *5.
Mr. Stile's motion must fall under the District of
Maine's Local Rule 7:
A motion to reconsider an interlocutory order of the Court,
meaning a motion other than one governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 59
or 60, shall demonstrate that the order was based on a
manifest error of fact or law and shall be filed within 14
days from the date of the order unless the party seeking a
reconsideration shows cause for not filing within that time.
D. Me. Loc. R. 7(f). As the Court issued its order on
September 28, 2018, a motion for reconsideration under Rule
7(f) was due on or before October 12, 2018. Mr. Stiles'
motion for reconsideration-dated October 25, 2018,
Pl.'s Recons. Mot. at 4-was docketed on November
1, 2018. Both fall outside of Local Rule 7(f)'s fourteen
day filing period, and ordinarily, the Court would dismiss
the motion for reconsideration as untimely.
Mr. Stile is incarcerated, and it is not clear when he
received the Court's order; this impacts calculations
under the “prisoner mailbox rule” and whether his
motion was timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988); Casanova v. Dubois, 304 F.3d 75,
78-79 (1st Cir. 2002). Even though Mr. Stile's motion may
well be untimely and even though Mr. Stile has not otherwise
shown cause for not filing within Local Rule's 7(f)'s
timeframe, the Court will address the merits of his motion
given its uncertainty as to the timeliness of his motion.