D'Oliveira v. State of Texas et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Nestor-Daniel D’Oliveira,
Plaintiff,
v.
State of Texas and Justice of the
Peace 	Precinct 	1, 	Montgomery
County,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-02327
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On November 4, 2025, Plaintiff Nestor-Daniel D’Oliveira filed a letter
requesting that this Court reconsider its October 31, 2025 Order adopting the
undersigned’s Memorandum and Recommendation and dismissing this case
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 	Dkt. 9; see also Dkt. 7 (Order adopting
Dkt. 5). 	Plaintiff’s letter reprises the same theory, which this Court already
rejected, that the Court has free-standing “equity jurisdiction” to review
Plaintiff’s convictions for two traffic violations. Compare Dkt. 9 at 1, with Dkt.
7 (finding that this contention “lack[s] merit”). Id. at 2; see also Dkt. 1 at 2, 9-
12 (D’Oliveiria’s complaint). There is no basis for reconsideration.
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a ‘Motion of
Reconsideration,’ but such motions may properly be considered either a Rule
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 20, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02327 Document 10 Filed 11/20/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment or a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from
judgment.” 	Hamilton v. Williams, 147 F.3d 367, 371 n.10 (5th Cir. 1998).
Because Plaintiff submitted his letter less than 28 days after the dismissal
order, the Court construes it as a Rule 59(e) motion. See D’Arbonne Bend LLC
v. Pierce Partners III, LLC, 2021 WL 3660764, at *2 (S.D. Tex, Jan. 6, 2021).
Relief under 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)
(quoting Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004)). 	To
obtain relief, the movant “must clearly establish either a manifest error of law
or fact or must present newly discovered evidence.” 	Simon v. United States,
891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990) (quotations omitted).
Plaintiff identifies no legal or factual error. 	Rather, Plaintiff merely
rehashes—without legal support—the same jurisdictional theory that this
Court found to be meritless. See, e.g., Garcia v. San Benito Consol. Indep. Sch.
Dist., 2023 WL 4494396, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 12, 2023) (rejecting an analogous
Rule 	59(e) 	motion 	that 	simply 	reiterated 	plaintiff’s 	“arguments 	in 	his
objections” to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, without identifying “a
manifest error of law or fact”).
Plaintiff does attach two arrest warrants dated October 28, 2025, which
arise out of the underlying state-court convictions (and likely reflect Plaintiff’s
failure to pay the related fines). 	See Dkt. 9 at 2-3. But those warrants do not
Case 4:25-cv-02327 Document 10 Filed 11/20/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
alter the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff has not identified a “legitimate basis
for a federal court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims.” See
Dkt. 8 at 3. 	Because the proffered evidence does not change the outcome,
reconsideration should be denied. 	See Narayanan v. Midwestern State Univ.,
2025 WL 2218880, at *5 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025) (per curiam) (affirming denial
of Rule 59(e) motion when the allegedly new facts “would not change the
outcome of this case”).
Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Nestor-
Daniel D’Oliveira’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 9) be DENIED.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this Report and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b). 	Failure 	to 	file 	timely 	objections 	will 	preclude
appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions, except for
plain error. 	Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825
(5th Cir. 2015).
Signed on November 20, 2025, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________
Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
,
_______________________________________
Yvvvoon	n	nne Y. Hooo
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-02327 Document 10 Filed 11/20/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 3