Yi v. Supreme Court of the United States of America

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/19/2016. (c/m 9/20/2016 aos, Deputy Clerk)

FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
CHONG SU YI,

U.S. OISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

lOlb SEP 20

CLERK'S OFF!!;:::
AT GKEDEELT

*

BY __

*

Plaintiff,

v.

*

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, et al.,

A /I: 20

._;;-

!; 'r'

*

Defendants

*

*

Case No.: G.JH-IS-3690

*
*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

OPINION

On February 29, 2016, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order dismissing Plaintiffs
complaint. ECF Nos. 4 & 5. On March 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
ECF No, 6. Because Plaintiff has not stated a meritorious reason to alter the previous conclusion
of this court, his motion will be denied,
Plaintiff s motion, filed within twenty-eight days of the dismissal order, is governed by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). "A Rule 59(e) motion is discretionary. It need not be granted unless the
district court finds that there has been an intervening change of controlling

law, that new

evidence has become available, or that there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice." Robinson v, Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F. 3d 403, 411 (4th Cir. 2010).

"Mere

disagreement does not support a Rule 59(e) motion." Hutchinson v, Staton, 994 F. 2d 1076, 1082
(4th Cir. 1993). The rule permits a district court to correct its own errors, "sparing the parties
and the appellate courts the burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings." Russell v, Delco Remy
Div. oIGen. Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir.1995).

Rule 59(e) motions may not be used, however, to raise arguments which could have been
raised prior to the issuance of the judgment, nor may they be used to argue a case under a novel
legal theory that the party had the ability to address in the first instance. See Russell, 51 F.3d at
749; see also Concordia College Corp. v. WR. Grace & Co., 999 F.2d 326, 330 (8th Cir. 1993).
Similarly, if a party relies on newly discovered evidence in its Rule 59(e) motion, the party
"must produce a 'legitimate justification

for not presenting' the evidence during the earlier

proceeding." Small v. Hunt, 98 F.3d 789, 798 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting RGI. Inc. v. Unified
Indus .. Inc., 963 F.2d 658, 662 (4th Cir. 1992». In general "reconsideration of a judgment after
its entry is an extraordinary

remedy which should be used sparingly."

Pacific Ins. Co. v.

American Nat. Fire Ins. Co.. 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998), citing Wright et aI., Federal
Practice and Procedure ~ 2810.1, at 124 (2d ed. 1995).
Plaintiffs

motion is a classic example of seeking a second bite of the apple. Allowing his

motion to proceed would defeat the concept of judicial finality. Plaintiff does not argue that
"'there has been an intervening

change of controlling

law, that new evidence has become

available, or that there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Robinson,
599 F.3d at 411. Rather, he appears to state that the Court should reverse its previous order
dismissing his case by arguing, without support, that the defense of absolute immunity is
unconstitutional.

ECF NO.6 at 4.1 Since "[m]ere disagreement does not support a Rule 59(e)

motion," HlIIchinson, 994 F. 2d at 1082, Plaintiffs

Motion for Reconsideration,

ECF NO.6, is

denied. A separate Order follows.

Dated: September (7,2016

/VI!--

GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge

I Pin cites to documents filed on the Court's electronic filing system (CM/ECF) refer to the page numbers generated
by that system.