United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider
the Court's Memorandum and Order of January 29,
2018. (ECF No. 62) In that Order, the Court
dismissed Plaintiffs claims of race, disability, and gender
discrimination against Defendant Christian Hospital
Northeast-Northwest ("Christian Hospital") for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court also
granted Defendant BJC Health System d/b/a BJC
Healthcare's Motion ("BJC") to Dismiss or, in
the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing all
claims against BJC. (ECF No. 59) Now pending is Plaintiff s
motion to reconsider. The motion is fully briefed and ready
for disposition. Upon thorough review of the motion and
related memoranda, the Court will deny Plaintiffs motion.
has filed a motion to reconsider the Court's Memorandum
and Order of January 29, 2018 under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff requests that
the Court alter or amend its judgment and allow her race and
disability claims to go forward against Christian Hospital,
as well as all discrimination claims to go forward against
BJC. In support, Plaintiff attaches a letter to the EEOC that
she alleges was attached to her amended charge of
discrimination. (Pl.'s Ex. 1, ECF No. 62-1) Defendants
respond that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she is
entitled to relief under either Rule 59(e) or 60(b).
district court has broad discretion in determining whether to
grant or deny a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to
Rule 59(e)." United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer
Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (citation
omitted). "Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function
of correcting 'manifest errors of law or fact or to
present newly discovered evidence.'" Id.
(quoting Innovative Home Health Care v. P. T.-O. T.
Assoc, of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th
Cir.1998) (internal quotation omitted)). Motions under 59(e)
'"cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender
new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been
offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.'"
Id. (quoting Innovative Home Health Care,
141 F.3d at 1286). "To prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion,
the movant must show that (1) the evidence was discovered
after trial; (2) the movant exercised due diligence to
discover the evidence before the end of trial; (3) the
evidence is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching;
and (4) a new trial considering the evidence would probably
produce a different result." Id. "A motion
to reconsider 'cannot be used to raise arguments which
could have been raised prior to the issuance of
judgment:" Adams v. Campbell, No. 2:12
cv-00024HEA, 2014 WL 117568, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 13, 2014)
(quoting Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d
407, 414 (8th Cir.1988)).
under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a court
order for several reasons including mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence,
fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct by an opposing party, or
any other reason that justifies relief. Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(b)(1)-(3), (6). '"Motions for reconsideration
serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.'"
Arnold v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721
(8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hagerman, 839 F.2d at 414
(quotations and citations omitted)). "The district court
has wide discretion in ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion . . .
." Jones v. Swanson, 512 F.3d 1045, 1049 (8th
Cir. 2008). Rule 60(b) "authorizes relief based on
certain enumerated circumstances (for example, fraud, changed
conditions, and the like). It is not a vehicle for simple
reargument of the merits." Broadway v. Norris,
193 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 1999).
Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she
is entitled to relief under either Rule 59(e) or 60(b).
First, the evidence Plaintiff now presents, a letter
allegedly attached to her amended charge of discrimination,
is not new evidence. Plaintiff submitted the amended charge
of discrimination and Right to Sue Notices with her
pleadings. Plaintiff had ample opportunities to also submit
the attachment to the amended charge in her many responses to
Christian Hospital's motion to dismiss and BJC's
motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, as well as her own
summary judgment motion. As stated above, motions under 59(e)
cannot be used to introduce new evidence which could have
been raised prior to entry of judgment. Metro. St. Louis
Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d at 934.
under Rule 60(b)(3) Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate fraud
or misconduct on the part of Defendants. "To prevail on
a Rule 60(b)(3) motion, the movant must show, 'with clear
and convincing evidence, that the opposing party engaged in a
fraud or misrepresentation that prevented the movant from
fully and fairly presenting its case.'" Id.
at 935 (quoting Harley v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866, 870
(8th Cir.2005) (internal quotation omitted)). Plaintiff fails
to make such a showing. Plaintiff contends that Defendants
submitted an incomplete amended charge of discrimination to
the Court. However, Plaintiff acknowledges that she possessed
the documents during the time period that she responded to
Christian Hospital's motion to dismiss and BJC's
motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, wherein Defendants
argued that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies. (ECF Nos. 44-46) The Court finds no fraud or
misrepresentation on the part of Defendants that prevented
Plaintiff from fully and fairly litigating this case. There
is no indication that Defendants intentionally withheld
evidence from Plaintiff or the Court; instead the evidence in
this case was Plaintiffs own charge of discrimination that
she filed with the EEOC. Thus, the Court finds that relief is
not available under Rule 60(b)(3). See Harrison v.
Commercial Woodworking Co., No. 4:08CV00082 ERW, 2008 WL
5105130, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 1, 2008) (finding a mere
allegation of misrepresentation did not amount to clear and
convincing evidence of a knowing and intentional
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Reconsider January 29,
2018 Memorandum and Order, construed as a Motion to
Reconsider under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 62) is DENIED.
Dated this 7th day of March, 2018.
 While Plaintiff references a
"motion" in her memorandum, the Court notes that
Plaintiff did not file a proper motion. However, based on
Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court will
construe Plaintiffs memorandum as a motion to
 Plaintiff does not specify which
subsection of Rule 60(b) she claims entitles her to relief.
However, the Defendant notes and the Court agrees, that
Plaintiff requests relief under subsection (3) for fraud,
misrepresentation, or misconduct by Defendant for failing to
disclose the ...