LOPEZ v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION re Order 21 . Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 3/7/18. (lsj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
henry LOPEZ, pro ie,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No: 16-cv-1171-RCL

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Defendant.

memorandum opinion

On August 2,2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
See EOF Nos, 11 and 12. Now before the Court is the defendant's motion for

reconsideration. ECF No. 13, moving the Court to revise its finding that plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. §
1983 claim against the District of Columbia survived dismissal. Upon consideration of
defendant's motion, the opposition and reply thereto, the relevant law, and the record in this case
the Court will GRANT defendant's motion and dismiss plaintiffs remaining claim.
I-

background

PUmitfH.„ Lopez filed ,„i, „de, 42 U.S.C. §1983
f«„ien „d M.,„

fc Diet,la ofCoiunibi.

B.„e,. He .lleged th., p„„

defe.d„ deleped fee.,e.,.,i„g d,„b„i„ be.ef.H ..d fh.,g, „

-ew befoee .. .d™i.,„d,e law Jddge. The Coop d™„ed „„da.d„, s„i. .g.i.a
Meyo, M.« B.„„ I. b,, .ff|a., e.p.el.g bee... fhe Dla„a ,f C.leabi. w« .....g, .
-eddefeod... |.,be Howe.ee, ibeCo.Pde.led tbea.«o...dle.l. fc el.ip ...g.,„,
.he Dwlde.OfColaabi.. The Co.„„,ed Ih.Mo L„,.z pleaded apl„ible See.lo. „„ .1.™

under the theory thataDistrict ofColumbia "unwrittenpolicy" violated his constitutional right of
access to courts.

EOF No. 12 at 5("Denial of access to the courts is recognized as a

constitutional violation under§1983.")(c/ftngChristopherv. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403,415 (2002).
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) governs acourt's reconsideration ofnon-final, or
interlocutory orders. The rule provides that an interlocutory order "may be revised at any time
before the ent^. ofajudgmentadjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities."

Fed. R.Civ.P.54(b). Anordergrantingamotionto(D.D.C. 2017). Courts may permit revision of
dismiss, inpart, isconsideredaninterlocutory
order. Patzy v. Hochberg, 266 F.Supp.3d221,223
an interlocutoryorder"asjusticerequires." Cobellv. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266,272 (D.D.C. 2004).
Reconsideration "may be warranted when acourt has 'patently misunderstood the parties, made a

decision beyond the adversarial issues presented, made an error in failing to consider controlling
decisions or data, or where acontrolling or significant change in the law has occurred.'" Alt v.
Carnegie Institution of Washington, 309 F.R.D. 77, 80 (D.D.C. 2015) {quoting U.S. ex rel.
Westrick V. SecondChance BodyArmor. Inc., 893 F.Supp.2d 258,268 (D.D.C. 2012)).
III.

ANALYSIS

The Courthas learned two material facts since its Memorandum Opinion and Order issued
on August 2,2017, militating in favor ofdismissal ofplaintiffs claim. First, the defendant, in its

motion forreconsideration, 7ofthe DistrictofCoiumbiaMunicipal Regulations ("DCMR") i„ its
highlighted fortheCourtthatonJuly7,2017,theDistrictofCol^^^^
repealed Chapter 1
ofTitle
entirety and adopted new regulations implementing Title 23 of the CMPA (the "Public Sector
Workers' Compensation" Program). Rule 153 ofthese new regulations provides thata"claimant

who believes that the Program has incorrectlycalculatedhis orher indemnity benefitmay request

hog,™.

and the claimant may seek review ofthe calculations before the Superior Court of
the District ofColumbia." Id. at §153 3

D«« .fCotaBu «

^ g,.,

D»«.fC.,».u „„ i,». cbirfRM,ffi„

~ .!.« b.™„ g.

^
,,™,,e.

5„,

^ ^

S"ECFNo. 13.,7fcttjw«Uns„„v, Z.»«„./c,W,. ggg p
2m, rco^hipg p,.i„ i.

^

^

f«™..|.,C«.i,.,...M6«gp.p,p^^
.p»m»,» „,.,ig.„.. p„,^,

^^^
^

^

^

^
^

h™ «,» a..
„D,c.,
^
^
f.«,»,d--^ »„^.^„ »d aiPaa,^^

«.» cp„.p „a., p. ^ ^

- 7in» Rul. 1« w.. «,.p«pHo, „
^^ ^

•m'»»™'»»Scl«mgeof|,„-p.„|ia„j,pppp^gp^.^^ This .gum.ai fe „!»,„»
b»a.. «p, „ „ p„,p ,„

those circumstances. &e Ali, 309 F.R.D. 77. 80 (D.D.C 20. St r
•
) (reconsideration appropriate if
court fails to consider controlling decisions or data.").
N=«. Mr, L.p«

^

W. h. ,«

^

or-««. c™. I, „.

^

^

.Pml te,™ „

^

^

^ ^^

.

^

^ ^

^

"» .. <«, «c.,.».,

*n he JW „, i„

Ac^rd,,.,,.

^

^

^

^

disniiss the plaintiffs claim.

~"'"»"«P(«"»bc.ll.gi.,-d„p.<..es..ioW„„o,„,|,,,i.a,^^

bibb.,., •l«"«<i«<»«tobi.„„,ed»„pi,U^.jp,|j,.jj,|,j3_^

B«fcCo«t

.•««b«S..ECF,2«5,.. Pb«<r.™o..,.p.
.fM,. L.,..-.„„p,™p,,

^ .d™ p.«P«oU„,^

. c™

,.

^

^

IfgovtrmnentofUc.b„, g„ j„„j, j,j_^ j,,,,

^

f« U ™,
S.

^

^1

»= M.,„ g, ..„g,^ „ .„, „f

«~ . .h.„,g „, »gi„„
P-...S.. .0 .g„ „ „

^^

^

„, ,,_, ,„

P»p.«g ,.«I,,,™, „„.i«„,

^

•P.. -h. p«„„ ge goes t„e (which i.c.fe hi. .hi,i»,. .„„, ,j.

^^

S.P«„ C.„, „, h.„«„ p,,.„,

S»e«,.,. he »*„,«, 3„,,., .,„„,,

___

»™« . cchwi..,™, ci.,.,|„
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS the defendant's .otion for
reconsideration, ECF No. 13, and DISMISSES plaintiffs remaining claim against the District of
DISMFS*?P<s r.j • t-r^^

Columbia, A Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
separate
Aseparate order will follow.

Date: March J, 2018
Roycte'C. Lamberth

United States District Judge