Sesay et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 9 motion to alter or amend judgment. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 8/14/2019. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
ANTHONY M. SESAY, et al.
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 18-1397

:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On February 19, 2019, the court issued a memorandum opinion
and order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing
Plaintiffs’ complaint.

(ECF Nos. 7 & 8).

On March 18, 2019,

Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend judgment, which is
presently pending.

(ECF No. 9).

Plaintiffs argue that there are

further facts to be considered and a clear error of law exists.
Defendants filed an opposition on April 1, 2019 (ECF No. 10), and
Plaintiffs replied on April 8, 2019 (ECF No. 11).

For the

following reasons, the motion will be denied.
A motion for reconsideration filed within 28 days of the
underlying order is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e).

Courts have recognized three limited grounds for granting

a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e): (1) to accommodate an intervening change in
controlling law, (2) to account for new evidence not available at
trial, or (3) to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest

injustice.

See United States ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse

Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing
Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th
Cir. 1998)), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1012 (2003).

A Rule 59(e)

motion “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise
arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to
the entry of judgment.”

Pacific Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403 (quoting

11 Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at
127–28 (2d ed. 1995)).

Where a party presents newly discovered

evidence in support of its Rule 59(e) motion, it “must produce a
legitimate justification for not presenting the evidence during
the earlier proceeding.”

Id. (quoting Small v. Hunt, 98 F.3d 789,

798 (4th Cir. 1996)) (internal marks omitted).

“In general,

‘reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary
remedy which should be used sparingly.’”

Id. (quoting Wright, et

al., supra, § 2810.1, at 124).
Plaintiffs contend that there are further facts warranting
reconsideration.

However, Plaintiffs do not indicate that these

facts constitute newly discovered evidence.

Indeed, the facts

alleged in Plaintiffs’ motion are not new and were already provided
for

consideration

in

Plaintiffs’

Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

complaint

and

opposition

to

Plaintiffs do, however, provide an

update to their visa appeal — that Ms. Sesay’s visa application
2

has been submitted to, and is pending with, the Department of
State.
19,

This avenue of relief was previously noted in the February

2019

opinion

and

reconsideration here.
seek

reconsideration

Congress.”

does

not

constitute

a

ground

for

As stated in the opinion, “Plaintiffs may
through

the

(ECF No. 7, at 17).

alternate

channels

fixed

by

Further, repeated arguments will

not be restated here because they were considered and rejected in
deciding the prior motion to dismiss, nor will substantially
similar arguments that could have been raised prior to the entry
of judgment be entertained.

Pacific Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403.

Lastly,

provide

Plaintiffs

do

not

an

intervening

change

in

controlling law or sufficiently identify a clear error of law.
Plaintiffs

argue

that

incorrectly applied.
applied.

a

“reason

to

believe”

(ECF No. 11, at 2).

standard

was

No such standard was

The court applied the consular nonreviewability doctrine

set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Kleindienst
v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972):

an executive officer’s decision

denying a visa that burdens a citizen’s own constitutional rights
is valid when it is made on the basis of a facially legitimate and
bona fide reason.

Once this standard is met, courts will neither

look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by
balancing its justification against the constitutional interests

3

of citizens the visa denial might implicate.

Thus, Plaintiffs’

motion for reconsideration cannot prevail.
Accordingly, it is this 14th day of August, 2019, by the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED that:
1. The motion to alter or amend judgment filed by Plaintiffs
(ECF No. 9) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and
2. The clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order directly to counsel for the parties.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

4