HUNT v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 2/14/2013. (kc )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

STAN HUNT,
Plaintiff,

v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
VETERAN AFFAIRS,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 11-1210 (RJL)

~

MEMORANDUM OPINION
February J.!1, 2013 [## 37-1, 38]
Pending before the Court is plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Rule 59 Motion
for Reconsideration [Dkt. # 38] and his Rule 59 Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. # 371], which defendant has opposed [Dkt. # 41]. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the final
order entered on August 31, 2012 [Dkt. # 34]. Since the motion to reconsider was timely
filed on September 13, 2012, the Court DENIES AS MOOT plaintiffs Motion for Leave
to File the Rule 59 Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (requiring a motion to alter or
amend a judgment to be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment). In
addition, for the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN
PART plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration.
Motions for reconsideration of final orders are committed to the sound discretion
of the trial court to grant or deny. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.
Cir. 1996). A motion for reconsideration "need not be granted unless the district court
finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new

1

evidence or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." !d. (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted). "A Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is not simply
an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled," New
York v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 37, 38 (D.D.C. 1995), nor is it a means to raise new

issues or to present new theories or arguments that could have been advanced during the
course of litigation, Patton Boggs LLP v. Chevron Corp., 683 F.3d 397,403 (D.C. Cir.
2012) (citing Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1296 (D.C. Cir. 2004)).
Plaintiff makes two independent assertions in his motion for reconsideration.
First, he asserts that the Court's denial of his motion for summary judgment on the
Privacy Act claim "is contrary to the facts and applicable law." Pl.'s Mot. for
Reconsideration ~ 5. This assertion reiterates previously-considered arguments, thereby
providing no basis for reconsideration of the denial of plaintiffs summary judgment
motion. For this reason, this element of plaintiffs motion for reconsideration must be
denied.
Second, plaintiff asserts that the judgment in defendant's favor on the Privacy Act
claim constituted "an error of law" since defendant failed to respond to that claim in its
summary judgment motion and "did not seek relief with regard" to that claim. Id.

~

3.

As to this assertion, the Court finds that plaintiff has reasonably questioned the awarding
of judgment to defendant on the Privacy Act claim, since defendant did not seek
summary judgment on this claim or oppose plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. In
granting this element of plaintiffs motion, the Court will amend the final order to make
clear that judgment is awarded to defendant only on the Freedom of Information Act
2

claim and that the Privacy Act claim is dismissed under the screening provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Mem.
Op. [Dkt. # 33] at 7-10.
Accordingly, plaintiffs Rule 59 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART, and his Motion for Leave to File the Rule 59 Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT. A separate Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.

United States

3