Yi v. Board of Election of Montgomery County et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 7 Motion for Reconsideration and 8 Amended Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 6/29/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 6/30/16)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division

*
CHONG SU YI,

*
Plaintiff,

*
v.

Civil Case No.: PWG-16-1004

*
BOARD OF ELECTION OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
MARYLAND BOARD OF ELECTIONS,

*

*

Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed this action against the Maryland Board of
Elections alleging a violation of his Fifteenth Amendment right to vote. Specifically, the Plaintiff
alleged that the Defendant precluded him from voting in both the Democratic and Republican
primaries because of his status as a registered independent.

ECF No. 1. On April 6, 2016 the

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding the Board of Election of Montgomery County as a
Defendant. ECF NO.4. I entered a Memorandum Opinion and an Order dismissing Plaintiffs
Amended Complaint on April 28, 2016, ECF Nos. 5 & 6, and on May 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of the April 28, 2016 Order, ECF NO.7. He amended his motion on
May 25, 2016. ECF NO.8.

Because Plaintiff has not stated a meritorious reason to alter the

previous conclusion of the Court, his Motions will be DENIED.
Plaintiff s motions, filed within twenty-eight days of the dismissal order, are Rule 59(e)
motions to alter or amend a judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); MLC Auto., LLC v. Town o/So.

Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277-80 (4th Cir. 2008).

"Although Rule 59(e) does not itself provide a

standard under which a district court may grant a motion to alter or amend a judgment, [the
Fourth Circuit] has previously recognized that there are three grounds for amending an earlier
judgment: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new
evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice." See Pacific Ins. Co v. Am. Nat 'I Fire. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d. 396,403 (4th Cir. 1998). The
Fourth Circuit has set clear limitations on Rule 59(e) motions and specified that these motions
may not be used "to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to the issuance of the
judgment .... " See id. "In general, 'reconsideration

of a judgment

after its entry is an

extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.'" Id. (quoting Wright et aI., Fed. Prac. &
Proc.

S

2810.1, at 124). It "is not a license for a losing party[] to get a 'second bite at the

apple.''' Shields v. Shetler, 120 F.R.D. 123, 126 (D. Co. 1988) (cited in Potter v. Potter, 199
F.R.D. 550, 552 n.l (D. Md. 2001)).
Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration constitutes a classic example of seeking a "second
bite at the apple," which, if allowed, would defeat the concept of judicial finality and would
transform motions practice into a never-ending cycle of intra-court review.

He 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 v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 411 (4th Cir. 2010).

See

Rather, he simply

presents his pleadings for a third time in his Motion for Reconsideration and for a fourth time in
his Amended Motion for Reconsideration.

2

Accordingly, it is, this l.~day

2016, hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's

O~

Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No.7, and Amended Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No.8,
ARE DENIED. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Memorandum Orde

lSI
Paul W. Grimm
United States District Judge
dh

3