LaConey v. Wilson et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 15 motion to alter or amend and to reconsider judgment. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 5/8/2018. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Glen Keith LaConey,

Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-850-CMC
Plaintiff,

vs.

ORDER

Alan McCrory Wilson; Kinli Abee; R. Knox
McMahon; Jocelyn Newman,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend and to reconsider the
judgment dismissing his case, pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF
No. 15. The challenged judgment, entered April 18, 2018, was based on the Order adopting the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge recommending dismissal of certain claims
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, and dismissal of claims for damages
against all Defendants with prejudice. ECF Nos. 12 (Order), 13 (Judgment).
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to allow the court to alter or amend an earlier judgment: “(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 prevent manifest injustice.” Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah
River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148
F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998)). “Rule 59(e) motions may not be used, however, to raise arguments
which could have been raised prior to the issuance of judgment, nor may they be used to argue a
case under a novel theory that the party had the ability to address in the first instance.” Pac. Ins.
Co., 148 F.3d at 403. Relief under Rule 59(e) is “an extraordinary remedy which should be used

sparingly.” Id. (internal marks omitted). “Mere disagreement does not support a Rule 59(e)
motion.” Becker, 305 F.3d at 290 (quoting Hutchinson v. Stanton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1082 (4th Cir.
1993)).
In the current motion, Plaintiff makes essentially the same arguments as in his previous
filings: (1) “[w]hile Plaintiff concedes to the first two prongs of the Younger1 test, Plaintiff opposes
the third prong”; (2) “extraordinary circumstances” exist to relax the deference accorded to state
legal process because the state court has “lost jurisdiction”; (3) the prosecutor Defendants are not
protected by absolute immunity; and (4) judicial officers are not immune from suit because they
acted without jurisdiction. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff does not allege an intervening change in law or
new evidence not previously available, and appears to be proceeding under a theory of manifest
injustice.
However, the court has already ruled upon the issues Plaintiff raises. The Order agreed
with the Magistrate Judge Younger required abstention, and noted Plaintiff was able to raise his
issues in both the state trial court and South Carolina Supreme Court. ECF Nos. 7, 12. As noted
in the Order, hearings have been held before two different judges on competency and bond issues.
ECF No. 12 at 2. Plaintiff’s trial date is set for next month. Id. The court also found Plaintiff’s

1

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) and its progeny provide a Federal Court should abstain
from interfering with state criminal proceedings unless the moving party has no adequate remedy
at law and will suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief. The test Plaintiff refers to holds
abstention appropriate where “(1) there are ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2) the proceedings
implicate important state interests; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims
in the state proceedings.” Martin Marietta Corp. v. Maryland Comm’n on Human Relations, 38
F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994).
2

arguments regarding loss of jurisdiction unavailing. Disagreement with the court’s previous
rulings is not proper justification for a Rule 59(e) motion.
For the reasons above, Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend and to reconsider judgment
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
May 8, 2018

3