Ellis v. Hopkins et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 25 MOTION for Reconsideration re 23 Memorandum & Order, 24 Order of Dismissal (case - Stipulation of Dismissal) filed by Plaintiff Kevin Ellis - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to reconsider [Doc. 25] is DENIED. Signed by Sr. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 3/6/2025. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
KEVIN C. ELLIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL HOPKINS, in his official capacity
As Medical Center Director, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:24-cv-24-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Kevin Ellis brought this lawsuit against several individual employees of
the John J. Pershing Veterans’ Administration Medical Center (“VA”) seeking money
damages and to enjoin the VA from prospective discipline. This Court granted
defendants’ motion to dismiss on June 6, 2024 [Doc. 23]. Plaintiff has moved for
reconsideration [Doc. 25]. That motion has been fully briefed.
“A motion for reconsideration serves the limited function of correcting manifest
errors of law or fact or presenting newly discovered evidence after a final judgment.”
Bradley Timberland Res. v. Bradley Lumber Co., 712 F.3d 401, 407 (8th Cir. 2013)
(citations and quotations omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which covers
motions for new trial or altering or amending a judgment, allows courts to correct
“manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Gilmer v.
Zahnd, 2023 WL 2496880, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 14, 2023) (citing United States v. Metro.
St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006)). Rule 60(b), which covers

motions for relief from a judgment or order, “provides for extraordinary relief which may
be granted only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.” Id. (quoting
U.S. Xpress Enters., Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 320 F.3d 809, 815 (8th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff cites both Rules 59 and 60 and contends that this Court should reconsider
its dismissal due to new evidence that was previously unavailable. Plaintiff states that
new evidence “reveals the plaintiff has exhausted his CRSA [Civil Service Reform Act, 5
U.S.C. § 1101, et seq.] avenues and the defendants do not have sovereign immunity.”
[Doc. 26 at 3.] Plaintiff cites and attaches a United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board (“ECAB”) order dismissing his appeal. The
Board states that “as there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the
Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal…must be
dismissed.”
Plaintiff’s claims in this case arose “under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.” [Doc. 23 at 1.] This Court dismissed the complaint because the
CSRA preempts his claims. In addition, this Court dismissed the claims individually: the
Title VII claim was dismissed because plaintiff did not allege discrimination based on a
protected characteristic; the FTCA claim was dismissed because Title VII preempts it;
and the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment claim was dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction “because sovereign immunity applies.” [Id. at 8.]

2

Plaintiff offers the ECAB order and suggests that it proves he had exhausted his
claims below. The ECAB’s order denied Ellis’s interlocutory challenge to the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs’ (“OWCP”) decision setting “aside a July 27, 2023
decision [concerning Ellis’s Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) claim], and
remand[ing] the case for further development followed by a de novo decision.” [Doc. 261 at 2.] In other words, ECAB wants a final adverse decision from the OWCP’s hearing
officer on Ellis’s FECA claim before reviewing it. The Order is irrelevant to this case and
provides no support for any motion to reconsider or any motion under Rules 59 or 60.
Plaintiff’s motion does not explain why this Court should reverse its decision either on
the preemption issue or on the other reason for the claims’ dismissals.
The motion will be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reconsider [Doc. 25] is
DENIED.
Dated this 6th day of March, 2025.
_____________________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3