DAVIS et al v. THERIAULT et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
HAROLD JOHN DAVIS, JR., et al., 	)
)
Plaintiffs 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:22-cv-00275-JCN
)
JANET THERIAULT, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER, RENEW,
AND PRESERVE DUE PROCESS CLAIMS
Plaintiff Davis asks the Court to “reconsider, renew, and preserve his constitutional
due-process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
Article I, §§1 and 6-A of the Maine Constitution.” (Motion at 1, ECF No. 216.) Plaintiff
contends that reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. (Id. at 3.)
On August 31, 2023, the Court (Levy, C.J.) ruled on multiple dispositive motions
filed by some of the defendants. (Omnibus Order, ECF No. 156.) In its order, the Court
concluded that Plaintiff had not asserted a plausible claim based on an alleged violation of
the Maine constitution or the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
The order resulted in the dismissal of all claims as to certain defendants. 	Subsequently,
Defendant Town of Millinocket and other defendants affiliated with the town moved for
judgment on the pleadings. (Motion for Judgment, ECF No. 160.) The Court granted in
part the motion, dismissing all claims against the moving defendants, except for Plaintiff’s
breach of contract claim against the town. (Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
ECF No. 187.)
Case 1:22-cv-00275-JCN Document 237 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff’s argument regarding the state constitutional due process claim that he
asserted can reasonably be construed as a motion to reconsider. “Ordinarily, a motion for
reconsideration is appropriate only if a moving party presents newly discovered evidence,
if there has been an intervening change in the law, or if the moving party can demonstrate
that the original decision was based on a manifest error of law or was clearly unjust.” In
re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 660 F. Supp. 2d 94, 97 (D. Me.
2009). Plaintiff has not cited any new evidence or asserted any additional facts that he has
learned since the Court issued it Omnibus Order, has not alleged a change in the law, and
has not presented a persuasive argument that would support a manifest injustice finding.
Instead, Plaintiff reiterates some of the facts that he previously asserted and faults his
former counsel for failing to cite relevant authority in support of his claim.
Plaintiff effectively asks the Court to consider the same alleged facts and reach a
different conclusion. 	“A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to force the court to
think twice; it is not an opportunity for the losing party simply to press his unsuccessful
arguments a second time in the hope that, by repetition, the court will see it that way.” Int’l
Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Verso Corp., 121 F. Supp. 3d 201, 217 (D.
Me. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 	Further, even if there were
merit to Plaintiff’s contention that his former counsel should have argued differently or
cited certain authority, reconsideration is not warranted. 	See KPS & Associates, Inc. v.
Designs By FMC, Inc., 381 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2003) (quoting Farm Constr. Servs., Inc. v.
Fudge, 831 F.2d 18, 21 (1st Cir. 1987) (“[W]e have consistently ‘turned a deaf ear to the
plea that the sins of the attorney should not be visited upon the client.’”).
Case 1:22-cv-00275-JCN Document 237 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Because Plaintiff did not previously allege a Fourteenth Amendment due process
claim,1 the Court construes his motion as a request to amend his pleading to assert the
claim. 	Following extensive motion practice, on September 13, 2024, the Court issued a
scheduling order in which the Court established January 17, 2025, as the deadline for the
parties to amend the pleadings. 	(Scheduling Order, ECF No. 191.) 	Plaintiff filed his
motion approximately ten months after the expiration of the deadline. A motion to amend
that is filed beyond the deadline established in a scheduling order requires an amendment
of the scheduling order. To obtain an amendment of the scheduling order, a party must
demonstrate good cause. Johnson v. Spencer Press of Maine, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 27, 30 (D.
Me. 2002); El–Hajj v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 156 F. Supp. 2d 27, 34 (D. Me. 2001); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
A court’s decision on good cause “focuses on the diligence (or lack thereof) of the
moving party more than it does on any prejudice to the party-opponent.” 	Steir v. Girl
Scouts of the USA, 383 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir. 2004). “Particularly disfavored are motions to
amend whose timing prejudices the opposing party by ‘requiring a re-opening of discovery
with additional costs, a significant postponement of the trial, and a likely major alteration
in trial tactics and strategy.’” Id. (quoting Acosta–Mestre v. Hilton Int’l of P.R., Inc., 156
F.3d 49, 52 (1st Cir. 1998)).
Here, the discovery deadline has now passed,2 and one party has filed a notice of
intent to file for summary judgment. 	If Plaintiff were permitted to assert a Fourteenth
1 Plaintiff alleged a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Claim, which the Court dismissed.
2 Plaintiff filed the motion approximately two months before the discovery deadline expired. The only outstanding
discovery appears to be Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendants’ written discovery.
Case 1:22-cv-00275-JCN Document 237 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Amendment due process claim at this stage of the proceedings, additional discovery would
undoubtedly be required, further delaying the resolution of this matter, which has been
pending for more than three years. Given the amount of time from the commencement of
this matter to the filing of the motion (more than three years), from the Court’s Omnibus
Order to the filing of the motion (more than two years), from the Courts’ order on the
motion for judgment on the pleadings (more than fifteen months), and from the deadline
for the parties to amend the pleadings to the filing of the motion (approximately ten
months), the Court cannot find good cause to permit the amendment at this stage of the
proceeding.
In sum, following a review of the record and after consideration of Plaintiff’s
motion, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to renew and preserve the due process claims
that he asserted or seeks to assert.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U. S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 18th day of February, 2026.
Case 1:22-cv-00275-JCN Document 237 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>