Jones-Butler v. Department of Justice
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered denying 7 Motion to Reopen Case. The prior dismissal of this case remains in effect, and this action remains CLOSED. Copy of Order sent to plaintiff by first-class mail on August 10, 2017. (PSSA, 4)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,
Civil Action No.
On July 11, 2017, the court dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
See Memorandum and Order, Docket No. 5. Plaintiff seeks to reopen the case so that she may
have her day in court. See Motion to Reopen, Docket No. 7.
A court’s reconsideration of a decision is “an extraordinary remedy which should be used
sparingly.” Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006). Once judgment has
entered as here, the court may only grant relief “if the moving party presents newly discovered
evidence, (2) if there has been an intervening change in the law, or (3) if the movant can
demonstrate that the original decision was based on a manifest error of law or was clearly
unjust.” United States v. Allen, 573 F.3d 42, 53 (1st Cir. 2009); see also Ferrara v. United
States, 372 F.Supp.2d 108, 119 (D. Mass. 2005). “[S]imple disagreement with the court’s
decision is not a basis for reconsideration.” Ofori v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 205 Fed. Appx. 851,
853 (1st Cir. 2006) (unpublished).
Jones-Butler repeats the factual allegations contained in her original complaint and
emphasizes that she has not been able to obtain legal assistance or justice. Despite these
difficulties, the court still has no legal basis upon which it may exercise jurisdiction over
plaintiff’s claims. As such, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. Based upon the foregoing, it is
hereby ORDERED that:
The motion (Docket No. 7) to reopen is DENIED; and
The prior dismissal of this case remains in effect, and this action remains
/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Dated: August 9, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?