Bohmier v. USA
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plt's 20 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 8/10/2015. (STC)cc: COR,PLT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION -- LEXINGTON
DENNIS MICHAEL BOHMIER,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-226-KKC
Plaintiff,
V.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Dennis Bohmier’s Motion to Reconsider
the Court’s February 9, 2015 Order (DE 20). For the reasons stated below, the Court will
deny Plaintiff’s motion.
I. Background
This is a Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671 et seq., case filed by
plaintiff Dennis Bohmier against the United States of America. Plaintiff Bohmier alleges
“negligence, medical malpractice, and breach of contract” in connection with medical care
provided to him at the Wilmington Veterans Affairs Medical Center. (DE 1). Plaintiff filed
his pro se complaint on June 10, 2014, and the United States answered on August 12, 2014.
(DE 1; DE 6). Thereafter, Mr. Bohmier filed a motion to strike the United States’ answer
(DE 8) and a motion for entry of default against the United States (DE 13). After briefing,
the Court issued an Order on February 9, 2015 that denied both of Plaintiff’s motions. (DE
18). Mr. Bohmier now asks the Court to amend that Order (1) to grant his motion to strike
the Government’s answer and (2) to grant his motion for entry of default. (DE 20).
II. Analysis
Motions to reconsider are evaluated under the same standard as a motion to alter or
amend a judgment under Rule 59(e). Howard v. Magoffin Co. Bd. of Educ., 830 F. Supp. 2d
308, 319 (E.D. Ky. 2012) (citing Keith v. Bobby, 618 F.3d 594, 597-98 (6th Cir. 2010)). To
succeed, the plaintiff must show one of the following: “(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly
discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent
manifest injustice.” Id. (quoting Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d
612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010)). However, “[a] motion under Rule 59(e) is not an opportunity to reargue a case.” Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th
Cir. 1998).
Reiterating the same arguments he made in his motion to strike, Plaintiff contends
that the Government’s answer should be stricken because (1) it was untimely and (2) it was
defective because he did not receive a separate notice of electronic filing. Plaintiff first
argues that it would be a clear error of law to hold that the United States’ answer was
properly served on him pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(C) when he did
not receive a separate notice of electronic filing. Plaintiff cites no authority for this position,
and the Court has been unable to locate any. Therefore, the Court cannot say that its
determination that the Government’s answer was properly served on Mr. Bohmier was a
clear error of law.
In addition, Plaintiff offers what he considers to be “newly discovered evidence” in
the form of the declaration of James Rogers, Mr. Bohmier’s neighbor, and a statement from
a postmaster in Lancaster, Kentucky. (See DE 20-1; DE 20-3). Plaintiff asserts that these
documents demonstrate that the United States’ answer was untimely. To qualify as newly
discovered evidence, a fact must have been previously unavailable to plaintiff. GenCorp,
Inc. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court has reviewed
and considered the contents of the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration. Although the declaration of James Rogers and the postmaster’s statement
2
did not technically exist prior to the Court’s February 9, 2015 Order, the substantive
information contained in those documents was available to Plaintiff prior to the Court’s
ruling. Thus, these documents do not qualify as new evidence as contemplated by Rule
59(e), and the Court cannot grant relief on this basis.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Court should amend its decision that the United
States’ answer was properly served in order to prevent manifest injustice. As the Court
stated in its previous Order, the Court cannot find that Mr. Bohmier was prejudiced by the
alleged omission of the notice of electronic filing when he acknowledges that he received the
answer itself. (See DE 18). Additionally, although Plaintiff argues that the Government’s
alleged untimely answer prejudiced him by reducing his response time by four days, there
is no obligation or time requirement to respond to an answer. Thus, because Plaintiff has
not established any of the bases for reconsideration, his motion will be denied.
Even, assuming arguendo, that the Government’s answer was untimely or deficient,
Mr. Bohmier would still not be entitled to a default judgment against the United States.
Default judgments against the United States are governed by Rule 55(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that “[a] default judgment may be entered against
the United States, its officers, or its agencies only if the claimant establishes a claim or
right to relief by evidence that satisfies the Court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(d). “Entry of default
against the federal government and its officers is particularly disfavored, and it may only
occur if the plaintiff substantiates his claim for relief with acceptable evidence.” Spotts v.
Hock, No. CIV. 10-353-GFVT, 2011 WL 5024437, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 19, 2011).
First, Rule 55(d) was created to prevent a judgment from being entered against the
Government because of a procedural default, which is what Plaintiff alleges here. See
Carroll v. Sec'y of Health, Educ. and Welfare, 470 F.2d 252, 256 (5th Cir. 1972); Arevalo v.
3
United States, No. MISC. 05-110, 2008 WL 3874795, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2008). Indeed,
courts have held that a federal defendant’s failure to serve a timely answer to a complaint
is not a sufficient ground for entry of default against the Government. See, e.g., George v.
Internal Revenue Serv., 344 F. App’x 309, 311 (9th Cir. 2009); Greenbaum v. United States,
360 F. Supp. 784, 789 (E.D. Pa. 1973).
Second and most significantly, Mr. Bohmier has not substantiated his “claim or
right to relief” on the merits by evidence satisfactory to this Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(d). Mr.
Bohmier’s motion is not supported with any evidence to verify his claims against the United
States. See White v. Stephens, No. 13-cv-2173-JDT-tmp, 2014 WL 727000, at *2 (W.D. Tenn.
Jan. 14, 2014) (denying the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment because the plaintiff did
provide any evidence to substantiate her claims on the merits against the government
defendants); Spotts, 2011 WL 5024437, at *2 (noting that “Rule 55(d) requires a party
seeking default judgment against federal officers to provide evidence to substantiate his
claim on the merits”).
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider
the Order of February 9, 2015 (DE 20) is DENIED.
Dated August 10, 2015.
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?