United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
Timothy Beers, pro se
Francis Charles Fredericks, Esq.
Lynmarie C. Cusack, Esq.
Michael Zoracki, Esq.
J. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court are two post-judgment motions filed by plaintiff,
Timothy Beers (Doc. Nos. 104, 105). Construed liberally, both
motions seek relief from the final judgment, Doc. No. 103,
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Defendants object.
See Doc. No. 111.
claims in this action arose out of a December 18, 2014 group
strip search of New Hampshire State Prison ("NHSP")
inmates, including Beers, conducted in the NHSP gymnasium
after a contact-visit holiday event attended by inmates and
their families. After the families left the event, NHSP
corrections officers strip-searched the inmates in the
presence of other inmates, a video surveillance camera, and
other corrections officers, including a female officer.
filed this case to challenge the validity of the group strip
search. Beers's claims asserted under the Prison Rape
Elimination Act ("PREA") claims, the Fourteenth
Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and claims alleging
Eighth Amendment violations for humiliation and endangerment
were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. See Feb. 2, 2016 Order (Doc. No.
13) (approving Dec. 14, 2015 Report and Recommendation
("R&R") (Doc. No. 7)). The court allowed Beers
to proceed on a claim asserting that the group strip search
was unreasonable, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
See id. The defendants to that claim were the NHSP
officers who Beers claimed had ordered or authorized the
group strip search at issue. See id.
filed motions asserting that they were entitled to qualified
immunity as to the Fourth Amendment claim. See Defs.
Fouts's, Greenwood's, Jardine's, and
Orlando's Mot. for Summ. J. (Doc. No. 44); Def.
Forcier's Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. No. 86). The court
granted those motions, finding that the defendants were
entitled to qualified immunity as to the Fourth Amendment
claim, and the clerk entered judgment for defendants in this
case. See Sept. 12, 2017 Order (Doc. No. 92), 2017
WL 4041316, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147077 (D.N.H. Sept. 12,
2017) (granting motion for summary judgment); Mar. 7, 2018
Order (Doc. No. 102) (granting motion to dismiss); Mar. 12,
2018 Judgment (Doc. No. 103). Beers then filed two motions
seeking to reopen the judgment, to allow for more discovery,
and to schedule a jury trial. See Doc. Nos. 104,
motions seek relief under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, as they were filed less than twenty-eight
days after judgment was entered in this case. See Alicea
v. Machete Music, 744 F.3d 773, 781 (1st Cir. 2014);
Aybar v. Crispin-Reyes, 118 F.3d 10, 17 n.3 (1st
Cir. 1997). Although courts have "considerable
discretion" in deciding whether to grant or deny a
motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e),
Venegas-Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183,
190 (1st Cir. 2005), such relief is "'an
extraordinary remedy which should be used
sparingly.'" Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465
F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). This court
may grant a Rule 59(e) motion based on an intervening change
in the law, a manifest error of law or fact underlying the
judgment, or newly-discovered evidence that could not have
been produced before judgment entered. Deka Int'l
S.A. v. Genzyme Corp. (In re Genzyme Corp. Sec. Litig.),
754 F.3d 31, 46 (1st Cir. 2014); Markel Am. Ins. Co. v.
Diaz-Santiago, 674 F.3d 21, 32 (1st Cir. 2012);
Glob. NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon New England, Inc., 489
F.3d 13, 25 (1st Cir. 2007). When a motion for relief from a
judgment is coupled with a motion to amend the complaint, the
motions may be properly denied if the proposed amendment is
futile. Feliciano-Hernandez v. Pereira-Castillo, 663
F.3d 527, 538 (1st Cir. 2011).
to Re-open and Expand the Record (Doc. No. 105)
Document No. 105, Beers asks the court to add a document to
the record, Doc. No. 105-1, entitled, "PREA Audit
Report," concerning PREA reports at the Northern New
Hampshire Correctional Facility ("NCF"), as well as
unspecified New Hampshire Department of Corrections
("DOC") training records, which Beers asserts would
show that all DOC employees have received training concerning
sexual abuse, "voyeurism," and/or sexual
harassment. Beers states the document he seeks to add to the