Bush v. Executive Branch United States et al
Filing
12
OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motions for Relief from the Courts October 2, 2017, Order 8 , 11 . This action is dismissed. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. on 6/12/18. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
THOMAS K. BUSH,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:17-cv-2379-WSD
EXECUTIVE BRANCH UNITED
STATES, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF
SESSIONS, PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES DONALD J.
TRUMP, and UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Thomas K. Bush’s (“Plaintiff”)
Motions for Relief from the Court’s October 2, 2017, Order [8], [11].
I.
BACKGROUND
On June 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed his pro se Petition for Mandamus Order
28 U.S.C. § 1361 [1] (“Petition”). Plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus directing
Defendants, members of the executive and judicial branches, to investigate and
prosecute former members of the executive branch, including Presidents
Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, former Attorney General Sally Yates, former
FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
(together, “Government Officials”). On July 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Motion for
Suspension of Rules, asking the Court to “suspend and or change the rules.” ([2] at
3). Plaintiff did not clearly identify the rules he seeks to suspend or change.
On August 24, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition on the
grounds that “Plaintiff cannot show that he has a clear right to the relief requested
or that [Defendants] have a clear duty to act.” ([3] at 3). On September 18, 2017,
Defendants filed their Motion to Stay Certain Pretrial Deadlines pending resolution
of their Motion to Dismiss.
On October 2, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [6].
On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Relief from the Court’s
October 2, 2017, Order [8]. On November 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second Motion
for Relief from the Court’s October 2, 2017, Order [11].
II.
DISCUSSION
Although the district court has discretion to reconsider, revise, alter or
amend a previous order, this is “an extraordinary remedy which should be used
sparingly.” 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 2810.1. “[A]
Rule 59(e) motion [cannot be used] to relitigate old matters, raise argument or
present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”
2
Michael Linet, Inc. v. Villate of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir.
2005). “The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly discovered
evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 1500 F.3d 1335, 1343
(11th Cir. 2007); see also In re Kellow, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff’s Motions for Relief from the Court’s October 2, 2017, Order
attempt to re-litigate the jurisdictional question that was decided by this Court in
granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. He presents no newly discovered
evidence and fails to demonstrate a manifest error of law or fact. Plaintiff repeats
his arguments from his response to the government’s Motion to Dismiss as to the
alleged wrongdoing of various former federal officials. Plaintiff does not set forth
any new law or facts that call into question the Court’s determination that Plaintiff
failed to establish the prerequisites for a mandamus action. Simply stated, a
motion for reconsideration should not be used as a party’s opportunity to
“repackage familiar arguments to test whether the court will change its mind.”
Bryan v. Murphy, 240 F. Supp. 1256, 1259 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (citations omitted);
see also Government Personnel Service, Inc. v. Government Personnel Mutual Life
Ins. Co., 759 F. Supp. 792, 793 (M.D. Fla. 1991), aff’d, 986 F.2d 506 (11th Cir.
1993) (district court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration where plaintiff
sought to relitigate issues that had already been considered and dismissed by the
3
court). Plaintiff’s effort here is a repackaging of his argument from before as to
misconduct by the Executive Branch.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Relief from the
Court’s October 2, 2017, Order [8], [11] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of June, 2018.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?