Lassiter v. State of Ohio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOEL LASSITER,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF OHIO,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:25-cv-1683
Judge J. Philip Calabrese
Magistrate Judge
Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Joel Lassiter, an inmate at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center
in Youngstown, Ohio, filed a pro se lawsuit against the State of Ohio relating to
medical care he received. On October 31, 2025, the Court dismissed his complaint.
Mr. Lassiter filed a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59.
Under Rule 59, a court may alter or amend the judgment where there is a clear
error of law, newly discovered evidence, or an intervening change in controlling law
or to prevent manifest injustice. 	GenCorp, Inc. v. American Int’l Underwriters, 178
F.3d 804, 	834 	(6th Cir. 	1999) 	(citations omitted). 	Such 	relief 	constitutes 	an
extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional cases. Hines v. Commissioner of Soc.
Sec., 414 F. Supp. 3d 1080, 1081 (S.D. Ohio 2019) (citations omitted). 	It is not an
opportunity to re-argue matters or “to raise arguments which could, and should, have
been made before judgment issued.” 	Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v.
Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. World
Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992)). 	Justifying reconsideration requires a
Case: 4:25-cv-01683-JPC Doc #: 9 Filed: 11/13/25 1 of 2. PageID #: <pageID>

2
moving party to: 	(1) demonstrate an intervening change in the controlling law; (2)
establish that new evidence is available; or (3) prove that a clear error occurred or
reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. 	See Louisville/Jefferson
Cnty. Metro. Gov’t v. Hotels.com, L.P., 590 F.3d 381, 389 (6th Cir. 2009). 	A district
court retains the discretion to entertain such a motion. 	Rodriguez v. Tennessee
Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App’x 949, 959 n.7 (6th Cir. 2004).
In his motion, Plaintiff confirms that he brings suit based, at least in part, on
the medical care he received (or was not provided to him). (ECF No. 8, PageID #26.)
He cites statutes and cases relating to disability discrimination against inmates.
(Id.) The Court already addressed these issues in its ruling dismissing his lawsuit.
(See ECF No. 6, PageID #21–22.) 	Upon review of the complaint, and Plaintiff’s
motion, the Court remains of the view that Plaintiff fails to state a claim. Therefore,
the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2025
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio
Case: 4:25-cv-01683-JPC Doc #: 9 Filed: 11/13/25 2 of 2. PageID #: <pageID>