Baker v. Federal Election Commission et al
OPINION AND ORDER denying 32 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 34 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 6/18/13.(jtho, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Federal Election Commission, President
Barak Obama, George W. Bush,
Mitt Romney, Virgil Goode, Jill Stein
Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-3154-JMC
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. No. 32]
and Motion to Alter Judgment [Dkt. No. 34] filed in response to this court’s Order [Dkt. No. 28]
adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) [Dkt. No. 13]. For the
reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Alter Judgment are
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [Dkt. No.
1]. Because Plaintiff failed to allege that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States was violated and thus failed to satisfy the first element of a § 1983 claim, the
Report, filed on November 14, 2012, recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] be
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process [Dkt. No. 13 at 3]. The
court adopted the Report [Dkt. No 28 at 2] and entered judgment in favor of defendants [Dkt.
No. 29] on January 29, 2013. Plaintiff timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration on February 7,
2013 [Dkt. No. 32], and a Motion to Alter Judgment on February 13, 2013 [Dkt. No. 34]. He
also submitted two letters regarding his case, filed on February 12, 2013, and February 15, 2013,
respectively [Dkt. Nos. 33 and 35]. In these letters, Plaintiff states that his cases “need to be
handle” and “need to go to trial” [Dkt. No. 35 at 1]. He also requests “legal forms 2d, 60 A.L.R.
5th 619 23:55 Fees and Costs-Payment; (23:56 Costs of Parties); 23:209 Costs and Attorneyswhere award not authorized” [Dkt. No. 35 at 1], as well as a “Petition Warranty of Title Judicial
§ 153 Necessary Interest and Control in Case Prejudicially Affected” [Dkt. No. 35 at 2] (all
spelling, grammar, capitalization, and punctuation are Plaintiff’s).
The court may alter or amend a judgment if the movant shows either (1) an intervening
change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence that was not available at trial; or (3) that there
has been a clear error of law or a manifest injustice. Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d
403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).1 “In general ‘reconsideration of a judgment after
its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.’” Pac. Ins. Co. of Am. v.
Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting 11 WRIGHT
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2810.1, at 124 (2d ed. 1995)).
In his Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Alter Judgment, Plaintiff does not
demonstrate an intervening change in the controlling law, nor does he present any new evidence.
Furthermore, Plaintiff does not show that he will suffer a manifest injustice as a result of the
court’s Order or that the court’s Order was in clear error of law. Instead, he repetitively insists
that federal investigations should take place in “law office[s].” See [Dkt. Nos. 32 and 34.] He
Motions for Reconsideration are often considered under the Rule 59(e) standard. Katyle v. Penn Nat.
Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 470 n. 4 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Shepherd v. Int’l Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 n. 1 (5th
Cir. 2004)); Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990). Thus, both of
Plaintiff’s motions are appropriately considered together.
also sets forth several personal opinions about the inner-workings and operations of the federal
courts. See [Dkt. Nos. 32 and 34.] These allegations do not rise to the level required for the
court to amend its judgment. Moreover, Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice to
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration [Dkt. No. 32] and Motion to Alter Judgment [Dkt. No. 34] are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
June 18, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?