Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Pisner

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 17 MOTION for Reconsideration; directing the Clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby on 3/10/2025. (c/m 03/10/2025 - bw5s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE
COMMISSION OF MARYLAND,
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
v.
GARY STEVEN PISNER,
Defendant/Respondent, pro se.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 24-cv-02807-LKG
Dated: March 10, 2025

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT’S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO STAY
Introduction
The Defendant/Respondent, Gary Steven Pisner, has moved for reconsideration of the
Court’s December 19, 2024, memorandum opinion and order (ECF No. 15) remanding this
matter to the Supreme Court of Maryland, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and for a stay of
proceedings pending appeal. ECF No. 17. These motions are fully briefed. ECF Nos. 17, 17-1
and 18. No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. L.R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2023). For the
reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the Defendant/Respondent’s motions for reconsideration
and for a stay (ECF No. 17).
Factual Background 1
On December 5, 2023, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (the
“Commission”) filed a petition for disciplinary or remedial action against Mr. Pisner in the
Supreme Court of Maryland. ECF No. 5-3. The Commission alleges in the petition that Mr.
Pisner violated multiple provisions of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct.
Id. at ¶ 110.
On September 27, 2024, Mr. Pisner removed this matter from the Supreme Court of
1

The facts recited in this memorandum opinion and order are taken from the Commission’s memorandum
of law in support of the motion to remand, the petition for disciplinary or remedial action and Mr.
Pisner’s notice of removal. ECF Nos. 1, 5-1 and 5-3.

Maryland to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446 and 1447. ECF No. 1. In the
September 27, 2024, Notice of Removal, Mr. Pisner alleged that multiple “constitutional
deficiencies” occurred while this matter was pending in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County, Maryland. ECF No. 1 at 2-3. Mr. Pisner also alleged that: (1) the Circuit Court did not
address the alleged constitutional deficiencies before the case was returned to the Supreme Court
of Maryland, on July 30, 2024, and (2) he filed a motion to establish a briefing schedule “to
address the procedural and due process errors, that the circuit court . . . failed to remedy[,]”
which was denied by the Supreme Court of Maryland, on August 28, 2024. Id. at 3-4. And so,
Mr. Pisner argued that removal to this Court was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(1)(c)(A),
because: (1) “the issues [he raised] constitute a claim arising under the U.S. Constitution of the
United States” and (2) “the . . . Maryland rules related to Maryland disciplinary proceedings act
as [an] unconstitutional constitutional impediment, and this Court[’s] intervention can remove
that impediment.” Id. at 4.
On October 9, 2024, the Commission filed a motion to remand. ECF No. 5. After the
motion to remand was fully briefed, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order
remanding the case to the Supreme Court of Maryland on December 19, 2024 (the “December
19, 2024, Decision”). ECF No. 15. In the December 19, 2024, Decision, the Court held that Mr.
Pisner had not met his burden to show that the removal of this case was appropriate, because the
Maryland Attorneys’ Rules for Professional Conduct and Maryland law make clear that original
and complete jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary actions rests with the Supreme Court of
Maryland. ECF No. 15 at 4-5; see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. Rheinstein, No.
17-2550, 2017 WL 4167402, at *2 (D. Md. Sept. 20, 20217) (citation omitted). And so, the
Court concluded that the attorney disciplinary issues in this case may only be considered by the
Supreme Court of Maryland. Id. at 5. The Court also held that Mr. Pisner had not raised a
separate federal question in this case that would fall within the Court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction, because the issues that he raised in the notice of removal were solely based on
Maryland state law and rules. Id.; see ECF No. 1 at 2-4 (listing the alleged violations with
references to Maryland case law and citations to Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional
Conduct). And so, the Court granted the Commission’s motion to remand and remanded this
matter to the Supreme Court of Maryland. ECF No. 15 at 5.

2

Standards Of Decision
A. Rule 59(e)
A party may move to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) or seek relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 & 60(b). Pursuant
to Rule 59(e), a party may move to alter or amend a court’s judgment within 28 days of entry.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A judgment may be amended under Rule 59(e), however, in only three
circumstances: (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. Zinkand v. Brown, 478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d
191, 197 (4th Cir. 2006)) (internal quotations omitted).
Analysis
Mr. Pisner seeks reconsideration of the Court’s December 19, 2024, Decision upon the
following three grounds: (1) the Court included factual allegations in the factual background and
procedural history of the December 19, 2024, Decision that “are either proven to be false or are
presented in a way that is misleading” and omitted material facts from his answer; (2) the Court
did not address his sur-reply; and (3) constitutional compliance is mandatory in disciplinary
matters. ECF No. 17-1 at 4-9. In addition, Mr. Pisner seeks a stay of this matter pending his
appeal. Id. at 9-11. And so, the Mr. Pisner requests that the Court either vacate or revise the
December 19, 2024, Decision, and stay this matter pending appeal. Id. at 6.
The Commission counters that reconsideration of the December 19, 2024, Decision is not
warranted, because: (1) the Court does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter
and (2) Mr. Pisner offers no new argument, law or evidence to support reconsideration. ECF No.
18 at 2-5. In addition, the Commission argues that the Court should deny Mr. Pisner’s motion to
stay, because this case has been remanded to the Supreme Court of Maryland and Mr. Pisner
fails to meet the requirements for a stay. Id. at 5-6. And so, the Commission requests that the
Court deny Mr. Pisner’s motion. Id. at 6.
For the reasons that follow, Mr. Pisner has neither shown that reconsideration of the
Court’s December 19, 2024, Decision is warranted under Rule 59(e), nor that a stay of this
matter is appropriate. And so, the Court DENIES Mr. Pisner’s motions.

3

As an initial matter, Mr. Pisner has not met his burden to show that reconsideration of the
Court’s December 19, 2024, Decision is warranted. Pursuant to Rule 59(e), a party may move to
alter or amend the Court’s judgment within 28 days of entry. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). But a
judgment may only be amended under Rule 59(e) in three discrete circumstances: (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. Zinkand, 478
F.3d at 637 (citing Ingle, 439 F.3d at 197) (internal quotations omitted).
Mr. Pisner has not show that any of these circumstances are present here. Notably, Mr.
Pisner does not identify an intervening change in controlling law, or new evidence that would
warrant reconsideration. ECF No. 17-1. Nor does Mr. Pisner show that reconsideration is
needed to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Id. Rather, Mr. Pisner seeks
in his motion for reconsideration to challenge the factual background and procedural history
contained in the December 19, 2024, Decision and to re-argue arguments that have been
previously considered by the Court. Because such concerns are not a proper basis for
reconsideration under Rule 59 (e), the Court must DENY Mr. Pisner’s motion for
reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Mr. Pisner also fails to show that a stay of proceedings is warranted in this matter. As the
Commission correctly observes, the Court cannot award such relief here, because this matter was
remanded to the Supreme Court of Maryland on December 20, 2024. ECF No. 18 at 3-4; see
also ECF No. 16. And so, the Court also DENIES Mr. Pisner’s motion to stay.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Defendant/Respondent’s motions for
reconsideration and to stay this matter (ECF No. 17).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Lydia Kay Griggsby
LYDIA KAY GRIGGSBY
United States District Judge

4