Nguyen v. United States Government

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff Jackhai Nguyen’s motion for leave to file an untimely
opposition,1 which the Court construes as a motion brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) or 60 since judgment has already been entered in this case.2 Having considered
the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court denies the motion because
Nguyen has not shown he is entitled to Rule 59(e) or 60 relief.
The present action is Nguyen’s third lawsuit claiming damages from the defendant, the
United States Government (the “government”), for the loss of a diamond tennis bracelet Nguyen
sent through registered mail.3 This Court dismissed without prejudice Nguyen’s first two lawsuits
after Nguyen failed to timely oppose the government’s motions to dismiss each respective action
for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, both of which appeared to have merit.4 Nguyen then filed
1 R. Doc. 24.
2 See R. Docs. 22 (judgment); 26 (citing R. Doc. 24); see also Celino v. Biotronik, Inc., 2022 WL 1449181,
at *1 (5th Cir. May 9, 2022) (“Because Plaintiffs filed their motion for reconsideration within 28 days of final
judgment, we will construe it as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend the district court’s
judgment.” (citing In re Life Partners Holdings, Inc., 926 F.3d 103, 128 (5th Cir. 2019))).
3 R. Doc. 1 at 1-4; see also Nguyen v. United States Postal Serv., No. 22-cv-3801 (E.D. La. filed Oct. 11,
2022) (Nguyen’s first suit claiming damages for the lost tennis bracelet); Nguyen v. United States Gov’t, No. 24-cv-
1117 (E.D. La. filed May 2, 2024) (Nguyen’s second suit claiming damages for the lost bracelet).
4 See Nguyen v. United States Postal Serv., No. 22-cv-3801 at R. Doc. 34 (order granting government’s
motion to dismiss Nguyen’s first case), aff’d and remanded, 2024 WL 655578 (5th Cir. Feb. 16, 2024); Nguyen v.
United States Gov’t, No. 24-cv-1117 at R. Doc. 17 (order granting government’s motion to dismiss Nguyen’s second
case).
JACKHAI NGUYEN
VERSUS
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-1031
SECTION M (2)
Case 2:25-cv-01031-BWA-DPC Document 29 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 3

2
a third complaint, instituting the present action, which the government again moved to dismiss for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.5 Nguyen, for the third time, failed to file a timely opposition
to the government’s motion to dismiss. 	The Court, finding that the government’s motion again
appeared to have merit, granted the motion as unopposed on December 4, 2025, and entered
judgment in favor of the government.6 On December 23, 2025, Nguyen filed the present motion
for leave to file an untimely opposition, arguing that his failure to timely file an opposition
constitutes “excusable neglect” because his counsel was travelling out of the country from
November 21 to December 1, 2025.7 The Court issued an order explaining that it would construe
Nguyen’s motion as one made pursuant to Rule 59(e) or 60 and that it would be set for submission
on January 22, 2026.8
The government responds in opposition, arguing that Nguyen is not entitled to relief under
Rule 59(e) or 60(b)(1).9 The government says the motion should be denied for four reasons: (1)
Nguyen had sufficient notice of the government’s motion to dismiss to request an extension of
time to reply; (2) Nguyen’s post-judgment motion requests additional time to file an opposition,
even though it came three weeks after his original opposition deadline, so the delay is not minimal;
(3) this is the third instance that Nguyen has missed the deadline to oppose a dispositive motion in
an action claiming damages for the lost bracelet; and (4) Nguyen fails to point to manifest errors
of law that warrant post-judgment relief, especially considering that the Fifth Circuit affirmed this
Court’s first dismissal and that jurisdictional issues are precluded from relitigation.10
5 R. Doc. 20.
6 R. Docs. 21 (order granting government’s motion as unopposed); 22 (judgment in favor of the government).
7 R. Doc. 24 at 1-5 (applying the four-factor test for excusable neglect set forth in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.
Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)).
8 R. Doc. 26.
9 R. Doc. 27 at 4-6.
10 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-01031-BWA-DPC Document 29 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 3

3
The Court agrees with the reasons given in the government’s opposition memorandum and
adopts them in full. This is the third time Nguyen has failed to timely oppose a dispositive motion
in a case he has brought concerning the bracelet. 	Nguyen has not pointed to a change in the
controlling law, newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable, or manifest errors of
law or fact that might entitle him to relief under Rule 59(e). See Torres v. Livingston, 972 F.3d
660, 663 (5th Cir. 2020). And Nguyen’s repeated disregard of an opposition deadline is a far cry
from the “excusable neglect” that might entitle him to relief under Rule 60.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Nguyen’s motion to alter or amend judgment or for relief from
judgment (R. Doc. 24) is DENIED.11
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of January, 2026.
________________________________
BARRY W. ASHE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 To the extent that Nguyen’s motion requests leave to file an untimely opposition to the government’s
motion to dismiss, the motion is also denied. As a result, the untimely opposition to the government’s motion to
dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (R. Doc. 28) that Nguyen filed without leave during the pendency of
this motion requesting such leave will be stricken.
Case 2:25-cv-01031-BWA-DPC Document 29 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 3