WIDI v. MCNEIL et al

Filing 213

ORDER denying 174 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 180 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 180 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
DAVID J. WIDI, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL MCNEIL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00188-JAW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
ORDERS GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS TO PAUL MCNEIL AND
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO TD BANK
David J. Widi, Jr.’s Amended Complaint alleges a variety of constitutional
torts relating to his criminal conviction for possession of firearms and ammunition
by a felon and manufacturing marijuana.

Am. Compl. (ECF No. 1).

Mr. Widi

charges that Special Agent Paul McNeil and others conspired to falsely arrest and
to falsely imprison him; specifically, he claims that they “hatched a plot to initiate a
traffic stop and arrest Mr. Widi for driving without a license”. Id. at 4. Mr. Widi
also charges TD Bank, N.A. with violating his right of financial privacy by
producing his financial records to the Government. Id. at 15.
On October 15, 2012, Special Agent McNeil moved for dismissal of all counts
against him and for summary judgment in his favor. Special Agent McNeil’s Mot. to
Dismiss or for Summ. J. (ECF No. 37). On September 24, 2013, the Court granted
Special Agent McNeil’s motion to dismiss all counts of the Complaint pending
against him. Order Denying Pl.’s Mot. to Stay; Denying Pl.’s Mot. to Strike; and
1

Granting Def. McNeil’s Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 170) (McNeil Order). On October
15, 2013, Mr. Widi moved for reconsideration. Mot. for Recons. and Certificate for
Appeal (ECF No. 180). On October 21, 2013, Special Agent Paul McNeil responded
to Mr. Widi’s motion for reconsideration. McNeil’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Recons.
(ECF No. 183).
On June 13, 2013, TD Bank filed an amended motion for summary judgment.
Am. Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 146). On September 25, 2013, the Court granted
TD Bank’s motion for summary judgment and resolved a number of other pending
motions. Order Granting Mot. for Summ. J. by Def. TD Bank; Denying Mot. to
Strike; Denying Disc.; and Dismissing Without Prejudice Mot. for Service of Process
(ECF No. 171). On October 7, 2013, David J. Widi, Jr. moved for reconsideration.
Mot. for Recons. of Summ. J. for TD Bank (ECF No. 174). TD Bank responded to
the motion on October 24, 2013. Def. TD Bank, N.A.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Recons.
of Summ. J. for TD Bank (ECF No. 185).
A motion “to alter or amend a judgment” is available under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e). FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). Such motions are sometimes referred to
in shorthand as “motions for reconsideration.” E.g., United States v. $23,000 in U.S.
Currency, 356 F.3d 157, 165 n.9 (1st Cir. 2004). However, a Rule 59(e) motion is not
a vehicle to force the court to think twice; it is not an opportunity for the losing
party simply to press his unsuccessful arguments a second time in the hope that, by
repetition, the court will see them his way. Thus, the motion “is normally not a
promising vehicle for revisiting a party’s case and rearguing theories previously

2

advanced and rejected.”

Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir.

2006).
Instead, the motion provides the court with an opportunity to correct
“manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Lakshman
v. Univ. of Me. Sys., 338 F. Supp. 2d 162, 164 (D. Me. 2004) (internal quotations
omitted). “As an ‘extraordinary remedy’, a motion for reconsideration’s utility is
properly limited to: ‘(1) the availability of new evidence not previously available, (2)
an intervening change in controlling law, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of
law or to prevent manifest injustice.’” Northwest Bypass Grp. v. U.S. Army Corps of
Eng’rs, 490 F. Supp. 2d 184, 187 (D.N.H. 2007) (quoting Villanueva-Mendez v.
Nieves Vazquez, 360 F. Supp. 2d 320, 324 (D.P.R. 2005)).
Applying these standards, the Court has carefully reviewed Mr. Widi’s
motions for reconsideration and concludes that they raise no new issues that the
Court did not previously address, present no new evidence, supply no clear error of
law, and fail to demonstrate a manifest injustice. The Court concludes that Special
Agent Paul McNeil is entitled to a dismissal of Mr. Widi’s Complaint and that TD
Bank North, N.A. is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The Court DENIES David J. Widi, Jr.’s Motion for Reconsideration and
Certificate for Appeal (ECF No. 180) and his Motion for Reconsideration of
Summary Judgment for TD Bank (ECF No. 174).1

Within Mr. Widi’s motions for reconsideration are motions for a certificate of appealability
under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a statute that permits the district judge to authorize the immediate
appeal of an order not otherwise appealable. The Court DENIES Mr. Widi’s requested relief under
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) because the section is applicable to interlocutory decisions and the granting of
1

3

SO ORDERED.

/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 18th day of February, 2014

Special Agent Paul McNeil’s motion to dismiss and TD Bank’s motion for summary judgment are not
interlocutory decisions.

4