Bayson v. Southeast Community College

8:25-cv-00575NedJan 9, 2026

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
RICHARD B. BAYSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY
COLLEGE, et al.,
Defendants.
8:25-CV-575
ORDER
The plaintiff has filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Filing 53. That motion will be denied.
Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. United States v.
Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 934 (8th Cir. 2006). Such motions
cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise
arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.
Id. And it is improper to repeat arguments the Court has already rejected. See
Preston v. City of Pleasant Hill, 642 F.3d 646, 652 (8th Cir. 2011).
The plaintiff asserts that at the time judgment was entered, he "was still
in the process of gathering critical evidence necessary to support the claims
presented." Filing 53 at 1. He "submits that the absence of this evidence may
have contributed to the Court's understanding of the facts and the legal
sufficiency of the claims" and argues that "had this information been available
at the time of the Court's review, it would have materially affected the Court's
analysis." Filing 53 at 1.
8:25-cv-00575-JMG-JMD Doc # 56 Filed: 01/09/26 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>
- 2 -
To prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion premised on the discovery of new
evidence, the movant must show that (1) the evidence was discovered after
entry of judgment; (2) the movant exercised due diligence to discover the
evidence before the judgment; (3) the evidence is material and not merely
cumulative or impeaching; and (4) reconsideration included the evidence would
probably produce a different result. See Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d
at 933. In this case—even if the availability of new evidence was pertinent to
dismissal for failure to state a claim, but see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d)—the plaintiff
has identified no new evidence.
The plaintiff provides no reason to think that the SCC Grievance
Hearing Procedures for Students, filing 53 at 9-22, were unavailable to him
from the start, and a Rule 59(e) motion does not allow evidence to be presented
after judgment when it could have been presented earlier. See Anjulo-Lopez v.
United States, 541 F.3d 814, 818 n.3 (8th Cir. 2008). Same with the SCC
employee grievance resolution process, filing 53 at 23-28, which isn't even
relevant because the plaintiff wasn't an employee. Finally, the emails he points
to were part of the case from the beginning. Compare filing 53 at 29-46, with
filing 1 at 12-31.
If any of that evidence was discovered after the entry of judgment, the
plaintiff hasn't shown that he exercised due diligence to discover it earlier. Nor
is the evidence material at all, much less suggestive of a different result. To
the limited extent it's relevant, the Court has already explained that SCC's
alleged failure to follow its own grievance procedures, even if true, wouldn't
support a claim for relief. See filing 49 at 9-11.
In his reply brief, the plaintiff contends that his Rule 59 motion isn't
"limited exclusively to newly discovered evidence." Filing 55 at 1. Instead, he
takes issue with the Court's analysis, and facts he says the Court didn't
8:25-cv-00575-JMG-JMD Doc # 56 Filed: 01/09/26 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>
- 3 -
address. See filing 55 at 1-4. Several of those contentions are newly asserted in
his reply brief and, as such, will not be considered. See NECivR 7.1(c)(2). In
any event, none warrant reconsideration under Rule 59, which may not be used
to relitigate old matters or raise arguments that could have been raised earlier.
See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion (filing 53)
is denied.
Dated this 9th day of January, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
8:25-cv-00575-JMG-JMD Doc # 56 Filed: 01/09/26 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.