WASHINGTON v. DONAHOE et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 36 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (c/m to Plaintiff 7/8/13 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 7/8/13. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
DEBBIE WASHINGTON
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 13-0339

:
PATRICK R. DONAHOE, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On

January

proceeding

pro

se,

10,

2013,

commenced

Plaintiff
this

action

Debbie

Washington,

against

the

United

States Postmaster General and numerous other defendants in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

By

an order of the same date, the case was transferred, sua sponte,
to this district.
forma pauperis
issued.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in

was granted on February 7 and summonses were

On February 22, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint,

naming four additional defendants.

Summonses were issued for

those defendants, as well as the United States Attorney General
and

United

States

Attorney,

on

April

3.

On

May

16,

four

defendants associated with the National Association of Letter
Carriers (“NALC”) or NALC Branch 142 filed a joint motion for
extension of time in which to respond to the complaint.
motion was granted on the same date.

That

On May 19, Plaintiff filed

the pending motion for reconsideration of the order granting the

extension.

She

appears

to

take

issue

with

a

statement

in

Defendants’ motion to the effect that they attempted to contact
her to gain her consent to an extension prior to filing their
motion.

According to Plaintiff, “I have provided the defendants

and their counsel with my correct address and no one has tried
[or] attempted to contact me.”

(ECF No. 36, at 1-2).

Motions seeking reconsideration of non-final, interlocutory
orders are properly considered under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), which
provides that “any order or other decision, however designated,
that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities

of

fewer

than

all

the

parties

does

not

end

the

action . . . and may be revised at any time before the entry of
a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’
rights

and

liabilities.”

The

precise

standard

governing

a

motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order is unclear.
Although the standards articulated in Rules 59(e) and 60(b) are
not binding in an analysis of Rule 54(b) motions, see Am. Canoe
Ass’n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 514 (4th Cir. 2003),
courts

frequently

look

to

these

standards

for

guidance

in

considering such motions, Akeva L.L.C. v. Adidas Am., Inc., 385
F.Supp.2d

559,

565–66

(M.D.N.C.

recognized that
2

2005).

The

Akeva

court

[p]ublic policy favors an end to litigation
and recognizes that efficient operation
requires
the
avoidance
of
re-arguing
questions that have already been decided.
Most courts have adhered to a fairly narrow
set of grounds on which to reconsider their
interlocutory orders and opinions. Courts
will reconsider an interlocutory order in
the following situations: (1) there has been
an intervening change in controlling law;
(2) there is additional evidence that was
not previously available; or (3) the prior
decision was based on clear error or would
work manifest injustice.
Id. (citations omitted); see also Beyond Sys., Inc. v. Kraft
Foods, Inc., No. PJM–08–409, 2010 WL 3059344, at *1–2 (D.Md.
Aug. 4, 2010) (applying this three-part test when evaluating a
motion for reconsideration under Rule 54(b)).
Plaintiff has not specifically addressed any of the grounds
for reconsideration, nor does any appear to apply.

Moreover,

she has not identified any prejudice inuring to her as a result
of the extension, and the fact that she did not receive mail
from

Defendants

contact her.

does

not

mean

that

they

did

not

attempt

to

Indeed, counsel has filed a declaration in support

of Defendants’ opposition papers documenting the efforts taken
to

make

contact

with

Plaintiff.

These

efforts

Defendants’ obligations under Local Rule 105.9.

3

satisfied

Accordingly, it is this 8th day of July, 2013, by the United
States

District

Court

for

the

District

of

Maryland,

ORDERED

that:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 36)

BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and
2.
Memorandum

The

clerk

Opinion

is
and

directed
Order

to

to

transmit

counsel

for

copies

of

Defendants

this
and

directly to Plaintiff.

________/s/_________________
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

4