Kuplen v. US Department of Justice et al

Filing 52

ORDER denying 51 Motion for Reconsideration re 43 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 4/13/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:13-cv-343-FDW
JOHN EDWARD KUPLEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
)
OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU
)
INVESTIGATION,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion for Reconsideration by pro se
Plaintiff John Kuplen, (Doc. No. 51).
On June 4, 2013, Plaintiff John Kuplen, a North Carolina state court inmate incarcerated
at Albermarle Correctional Institution, filed the underlying lawsuit pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act, in which he named as Defendants the U.S. Department of Justice and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated the FOIA by refusing
to disclose certain documents sought by Plaintiff related to his 1984 conviction in Guilford
County, North Carolina, for first-degree sexual offense, attempted first-degree rape, and assault
with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. In an Order dated March 9,
2015, this Court granted summary judgment to Defendants. (Doc. No. 43).
On April 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed the pending motion for reconsideration, which is in the
nature of a motion to alter or amend the prior judgment of the Court under Rule 59(e) of the

1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. With regard to motions to alter or amend a judgment under
Rule 59(e), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has stated:
A district court has the discretion to grant a Rule 59(e) motion only in very
narrow 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 to prevent manifest injustice.”
Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Collison v. Int’l Chem. Workers
Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994)). Furthermore, “Rule 59(e) motions may not be used to
make arguments that could have been made before the judgment was entered.” Id. Indeed, the
circumstances under which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted are so limited that
“[c]ommentators observe ‘because of the narrow purposes for which they are intended, Rule
59(e) motions typically are denied.’” Woodrum v. Thomas Mem’l Hosp. Found., Inc., 186
F.R.D. 350, 351 (S.D. W. Va. 1999) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary
Kay Kane, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)).
Plaintiff has not shown the existence of the limited circumstances under which a Rule
59(e) motion may be granted. That is, Plaintiff’s motion does not present evidence that was
unavailable when he filed his Complaint, nor does his motion stem from an intervening change
in the applicable law. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not shown that a clear error of law has been
made, or that failure to grant the motion would result in manifest injustice to him. See Hill, 277
F.3d at 708. In sum, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc.
No. 51), is DENIED.
Signed: April 13, 2015

2