Richard Stogsdill et al v. Sebelius et al

Filing 146

ORDER denying 138 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 12/15/2014.(bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Richard Stogsdill, Nancy Stogsdill, Mother of
Richard Stogsdill, Robert Levin, and Mary Self,
Mother of Robert Levin,

C/A No. 3:12-cv-0007-JFA

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORDER

Anthony Keck and the South Carolina
Department of Health and Human Services,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider. (ECF No. 138). Plaintiffs
have moved for relief in their motion under Rule 59(e); however, as motions to reconsider are not
expressly contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will treat this motion as a
Rule 54(b) motion to revise its Order.1
The Fourth Circuit has offered little guidance on the standard for evaluating such a motion,
but has held motions under Rule 59(b) are “not subject to the restrictive standards” of motion under
Rule 60. Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1472 (4th Cir. 1991)
(the Court found it “unnecessary to thoroughly express our views on the interplay of Rules 60, 59,

1

The Fourth Circuit has held a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order is properly considered under Rule 54(b),
though “it is not necessary to label under a particular rule number a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory
order.” Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1470-72 (4th Cir. 1991). Rule 59(e) is
an inappropriate vehicle because the order in question is not a final judgment. Id. at 1469.

1

and 54.”). Having been admonished not to use the standards for a Rule 60 motion, the Court turns to
cases involving Rule 59 for guidance.
Motions under Rule 59 are not to be made lightly: “[R]econsideration of a previous order is
an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interest of finality and conservation of judicial
resources.” 12 JAMES WM. MOORE

ET AL.,

MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 59.30[4] (3d ed.). The

Fourth Circuit has held such a motion should be granted only for three reasons: (1) to follow an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) on account of new evidence; or (3) “to correct a clear
error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Hutchinson v Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993)
(emphasis added). Rule 59 motions “may not be used to make arguments that could have been made
before the judgment was entered.” Hill v Braxton, 227 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002). Further, Rule
59 motions are not opportunities to rehash issues already ruled upon because a litigant is displeased
with the result. See Tran v. Tran, 166 F.Supp.2d 793, 798 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
Having reviewed the pleadings related to this motion, the Court finds oral argument would
not aid in its decision-making process. In the view of this Court, the motions presents neither new
controlling law, nor new evidence, nor points out a clear legal error of this Court – the motion is
basically an attempt to reargue issues already fully briefed and decided by this Court.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to revise the judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 15, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2