Arroyo v. Zamora et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 13 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 5/1/18. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-721-FDW-DCK
VALERIE ARROYO,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DANIEL ZAMORA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se “Motion to Vacate Sua Sponte
Order,” which is construed as a Second Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. No. 13).
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)).

1

On March 21, 2018, the Court dismissed the Complaint as frivolous, for failure to state a
claim on which relief can be granted, and for seeking damages against immune parties. Plaintiff,
for the second time, seeks to challenge that Order, but has not shown the existence of the limited
circumstances under which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted. The motion does not present
evidence that was unavailable when the Complaint was filed, nor does the motion stem from an
intervening change in the applicable law. Furthermore, the 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.
See Hill, 277 F.3d at 708. For these reasons, the Court will deny the Plaintiff’s Second Motion
for Reconsideration. Plaintiff is cautioned that continued frivolous and duplicative pro se filings
may result in the imposition of sanctions.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration,
(Doc. No. 13), is DENIED.
Signed: May 1, 2018

2