Bell v. Dallas County Texas et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
C ANDACE BELL, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
V. 	§ 	No. 3:26-cv-88-B-BN
§
DALLAS C OUNTY, T EXAS , ET AL., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Without paying the filing fee, Plaintiff Candace Bell filed a pro se complaint alleging civil
rights claims relating to enforcement of a February 2017 state family court order (the “SAPCR
Order”). See Dkt. No. 3. The magistrate judge entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a
recommendation that the Court dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction(the “FCR”). See Dkt.
No. 11. Bell sought an extension to file objections and attached proposed objections. See Dkt. No.
12. The Court accepted the FCR and entered judgment on February 27, 2026. See Dkt. Nos. 15, 16.
On March 3, 2026, Bell filed objections and a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e). See Dkt. Nos. 17, 18.
A Rule 59(e) motion timely filed, within 28 days of judgment, “‘suspends the finality of the
original judgment’ for purposes of an appeal.” Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504, 508 (2020) (quoting
FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364, 373, n.10 (1984)). Upon the timely filing of
an initial Rule 59(e) motion, “there is no longer a final judgment to appeal from,” and a district
court must rule on such a motion to “restore the finality of the original judgment” and “start the 30-
day appeal clock,” id. (cleaned up), even where a litigant files that motion after noticing an appeal,
see FED . R. APP . P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i); FED . R. APP . P. 4(a)(4)(A). The Court’s “ruling on the Rule 59(e)
Case 3:26-cv-00088-B-BN Document 19 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

motion” will therefore merge “with the prior determination, so that the reviewing court takes up
only one judgment.” Banister, 590 U.S. at 509 (citation omitted).
Rule 59(e) “is ‘an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.’” Rollins v. Home Depot
USA, 8 F.4th 393, 396 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). And, while its text “does not specify the
available grounds for obtaining such relief,” the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
has explained that Rule 59(e) motions “are for the narrow purpose of correcting
manifest errors of law or fact or presenting newly discovered evidence” – not for
raising arguments “which could, and should, have been made before the judgment
issued.” [The Fifth Circuit has] further noted that Rule 59(e) allows a party to alter
or amend a judgment when there has been an intervening change in the controlling
law.
Id. (citations omitted); accord Demahy, 702 F.3d at 182.
Bell’s motion and objections largely rehash arguments made in her complaint that were
already considered and rejected by the magistrate judge in the FCR. See Dkt. No. 11 at 5.
Controlling law has not changed since the Court entered judgment; Bell presents no newly
discovered evidence that could question the correctness of the judgment; nor does she plausibly
show that the Court need correct a manifest error of law or fact.
Bell also asserts that, although she attached objections to her motion for extension, it
appeared that “the Court did not construed that submission as formal objections under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). Dkt. No. 18 at 1. The Court’s order accepting the FCR in this case stated that no
objections had been filed and that the Court applied the plain error standard. See Dkt. No. 15. But,
reviewing de novo those portions of the FCR to which objection was made in the document attached
to the motion for extension, the Court finds no error in the FCR. So the standard of review for the
portions of the FCR addressed in the proposed objections attached to the motion for extension
would not alter the Court’s judgment.
Case 3:26-cv-00088-B-BN Document 19 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

In sum, Bell offers no compelling reasons to reconsider the Court’s decision to dismiss her
claims. Therefore, the Court DENIES her post-judgment motions [Dkt. Nos. 17, 18].
SO ORDERED this 8th day of April, 2026.
____________________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00088-B-BN Document 19 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>