Merchia v. Virginia Board of Medicine
Filing
34
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered denying 33 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying 33 Motion for Reconsideration (FDS, law1)
Case 1:18-cv-11136-FDS Document 34 Filed 05/02/19 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
PANKAJ MERCHIA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
VIRGINIA BOARD OF MEDICINE;
)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
)
PROFESSIONS; WILLIAM L. HARP, M.D.; )
JENNIFER DESCHENES, J.D.; KEVIN
)
O’CONNOR, M.D.; SYED ALI, M.D.;
)
JASMINE GORE; ALVIN EDWARDS, PH.D.; )
JANE HICKEY, J.D.; ISAAC KOZIOL, M.D.; )
ERIN BARRETT, J.D.; TAMIKA HINES;
)
JAMES SCHLIESSMANN, J.D.; SHEVAUN
)
ROUKOUS, J.D.; CYNTHIA LEVEILLE,
)
M.D.; SIOBHAN DUNNAVANT, M.D.;
)
WAYNE REYNOLDS, M.D.; and GERALD A. )
MILSKY, J.D.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Civil Action No.
18-11136-FDS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR POST-JUDGMENT RELIEF
SAYLOR, J.
The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 2,
2019. Plaintiff has since moved for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), seeking to
vacate the dismissal and file a second amended complaint.
As a preliminary procedural matter, motions for post-judgment relief may be made under
Rules 59(e) or 60(b). A motion for post-judgment relief filed within 28 days of entry of
judgment is made under Rule 59(e), and all other motions for post-judgment relief are made
under Rule 60(b). Because plaintiff’s motion was filed 28 days after entry of judgment, the
Case 1:18-cv-11136-FDS Document 34 Filed 05/02/19 Page 2 of 4
Court will treat it as a motion for relief under Rule 59(e). 1
Rule 59(e) grants federal courts the power to vacate judgments, but such relief is “granted
sparingly, and only when ‘the original judgment evidenced a manifest error of law, if there is
newly discovered evidence, or in certain other narrow situations.’” Fontanillas-Lopez v. Morell
Bauza Cartagena & Dapena, LLC, 832 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Biltcliffe v.
CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d 925, 930 (1st Cir. 2014)). “A motion for reconsideration is not the
venue to undo procedural snafus or permit a party to advance arguments it should have
developed prior to judgment, nor is it a mechanism to regurgitate old arguments previously
considered and rejected.” Biltcliffe, 772 F.3d at 930 (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
While plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint, read liberally, appears to include
new factual allegations, he has not explained why those facts were not previously known or
knowable to him. Nor has he identified a change in the law or a manifest error of law. 2
Therefore, the motion for post-judgment relief under Rule 59(e) will be denied.
Moreover, even if the motion had been made under Rule 60(b), it would still be denied.
“Rule 60(b) grants federal courts the power to vacate judgments ‘whenever such action is
appropriate to accomplish justice.’” Roosevelt REO PR II Corp. v. Del Llano-Jimenez, 2019 WL
1526691, at *2 (1st Cir. Apr. 9, 2019) (quoting Bouret-Echevarria v. Caribbean Aviation Maint.
Corp., 784 F.3d 37, 41 (1st Cir. 2015)). However, “relief under Rule 60(b) is extraordinary in
Plaintiff also requests leave to file a second amended complaint. However, because that request was
made “only after the district court dismissed [his] first amended complaint,” it “cannot be allowed unless and until
the judgment is vacated.” Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006). Because the Court will not
vacate the judgment, it need not address plaintiff’s request for leave to amend.
1
In his brief in support of the motion, plaintiff contends that dismissal was partly predicated on a mistake
of law because “Virginia waives sovereign immunity for any state actor engaged in Gross Negligence.” However,
plaintiff did not raise that argument in opposing the motion to dismiss and has not explained how defendants’
actions constituted gross negligence.
2
2
Case 1:18-cv-11136-FDS Document 34 Filed 05/02/19 Page 3 of 4
nature and . . . motions invoking that rule should be granted sparingly.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). The party seeking relief must show that (1) the motion was timely,
(2) exceptional circumstances justifying relief exist, (3) the other party would not be unfairly
prejudiced, and (4) there is a potentially meritorious claim or defense. See id. (citation omitted).
In evaluating a Rule 60(b) motion, “[c]ourts are not to ‘give credence to [a] movant’s bald
assertions, unsubstantiated conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, or hyperbolic
rodomontade.’” Id. (quoting Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local
No. 59 v. Superline Transp. Co., 953 F.2d 17, 18 (1st Cir. 1992) (second alteration in original)).
In essence, plaintiff contends that because he is proceeding pro se, his failure to plead
sufficient facts constitutes “excusable neglect.” “Deciding what constitutes excusable neglect is
a case-specific exercise, which requires ‘an equitable determination, taking into account the
entire facts and circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.’” Rivera-Velazquez v. Hartford
Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 750 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Davila-Alvarez v.
Escuela de Medicina Universidad Cent. del Caribe, 257 F.3d 58, 64 (1st Cir. 2001)). “The
pertinent facts and circumstances typically include such things as ‘the danger of prejudice to the
non-movant, the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether the movant acted in
good faith.’” Id. (quoting Davila-Alvarez, 750 F.3d at 4). “Within the constellation of relevant
factors, the most important is the reason for the particular oversight.” Id. (quoting Nansamba v.
N. Shore Med. Ctr., Inc., 727 F.3d 33, 39 (1st Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
There is no evidence of bad faith on plaintiff’s part. And the delay was brief; motions for
post-judgment relief under Rule 60(b)(1) must be filed within a year of entry of judgment, and
plaintiff filed his motion within 28 days. However, plaintiff has not provided any authority, and
this Court is unaware of any, for the proposition that a litigant’s pro se status, without more,
3
Case 1:18-cv-11136-FDS Document 34 Filed 05/02/19 Page 4 of 4
justifies inadequate pleading as “excusable neglect.” Cf. Capizzi v. States Resources Corp., 2005
WL 113679, at *5 (D. Mass. Jan. 20, 2005) (rejecting argument that pro se status excused
plaintiffs from complying with court orders). 3 And if that were true, pro se litigants could
simply move for reconsideration whenever a court dismissed their cases. Furthermore,
defendants here would be unfairly prejudiced if the Court were to vacate the judgment. Cf.
Skrabec v. Town of N. Attleboro, 321 F.R.D. 46, 49 (D. Mass. 2017) (noting that defendants
would be prejudiced if litigation were reopened because they were entitled to summary
judgment). 4 Because those factors weigh against reopening the case, the Court finds that
plaintiff failed to show excusable neglect as required under Rule 60(b).
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for post-judgment relief is
DENIED.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge
Dated: May 2, 2019
Plaintiff does not appear to dispute that the Court construed the amended complaint liberally in light of
his pro se status.
3
Plaintiff cites to Deo-Agbasi v. Parthenon Grp., 229 F.R.D. 348, 353 (D. Mass. 2005) for the proposition
that “[t]he prejudice factor generally does not weigh against the moving party when the only negative aspect would
be the reopening of a matter the opposing party would rather have closed.” However, he overlooks the next two
sentences in that opinion, which cautioned that the prejudice factor weighed against the plaintiff because the events
underlying the complaint were five years old. Here, plaintiff’s alleged mishandling of patient medical records
occurred almost a decade ago, and it appears that his administrative proceedings before the Virginia Board of
Medicine concluded approximately two years ago.
4
4
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?