Gauthier et al v. Kirkpatrick et al
Filing
106
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court interprets Plaintiffs' 103 Response and 105 Prosecution of Claim as a Rule 59(e) Motion, and DENIES that Motion. Plaintiffs' 104 MOTION to Appoint Counsel is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge John M. Conroy on 9/26/2014. (hbc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
David Gauthier, Edward Gauthier,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-187
Troy Kirkpatrick, Barre, Vermont,
Weiland Ross, Judge Howard VanBenthuysen,
Newport Correctional Facility, Rick Wade,
Michael Mathieu, Nicholas Fortier,
Jeff Poginy, Thomas Kelly, Megan Campbell,
State Trooper Leblanc, State Trooper Maurice,
Bonnie Goode, Tiffany Stark,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
(Docs. 103, 104, 105)
Plaintiffs David Gauthier and Edward Gauthier, proceeding pro se, brought this
suit against the above-captioned Defendants; Plaintiffs’ claims stem from their seizure or
arrest in January 2012, the proceedings in David Gauthier’s state-court criminal case, and
Plaintiffs’ treatment at correctional facilities during the state-court proceedings. In
February 2014 the Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims against all Defendants except
for Plaintiffs’ claims against Ms. Stark and their Fourth Amendment claim against Barre
police officers Weiland Ross and Troy Kirkpatrick. (Doc. 67 at 2.) In an Amended
Opinion and Order filed on September 12, 2014 (familiarity with which is presumed), the
Court granted Ms. Stark’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and granted
Defendants Kirkpatrick and Ross’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. (Doc.
101.) Also on September 12, 2014, the Court entered a Judgment dismissing the case.
(Doc. 102.)
On September 15, 2014 Plaintiffs filed a “Response” (Doc. 103) and a five-page
document entitled “[Prosecution] of Claim.” (Doc. 105.) Plaintiffs also seek courtappointed counsel. (Doc. 104.)1 All parties have consented to direct assignment to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge. (Docs. 33, 37, 38, 41, 53, 55.) For the reasons discussed
below, the Court interprets Plaintiffs’ most recent filings (Docs. 103, 105) as a Rule 59(e)
Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment, and DENIES that Motion. The Court also
DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 104) as moot.
Analysis
I.
Rule 59(e) Motion
Because Plaintiffs’ “Response” (Doc. 103) and “[Prosecution] of Claim” (Doc.
105) filings appear to be post-judgment motions attacking the correctness of the
Judgment (Doc. 102), the Court interprets them as a Motion to Alter or Amend a
Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d
37, 41 (2d Cir. 1982) (“[W]here a post-judgment motion is timely filed and calls into
question the correctness of that judgment it should be treated as a motion under Rule
59(e), however it may be formally styled.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
1
The “[Prosecution] of Claim” (Doc. 105) is not signed and fails to conform with the applicable
rules regarding motions in a variety of ways. The “Response” and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Docs.
103, 104) purport to be on behalf of “Edward and David Gauthier pro s[e],” (id. at 2), but are signed only
by Edward Gauthier (id. at 4). For simplicity the Court refers to the filings as being on behalf of both
Plaintiffs, and overlooks the significant procedural nonconformities in light of Plaintiffs’ pro se status.
2
Under Rule 59(e), the Court “may alter or amend judgment to correct a clear error
of law or prevent manifest injustice.” ING Global v. United Parcel Serv. Oasis Supply
Corp., 757 F.3d 92, 96 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Schwartz v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 539
F.3d 135, 153 (2d Cir. 2008)). Other grounds for Rule 59(e) relief include “an
intervening change of controlling law, [or] the availability of new evidence.” See Virgin
Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (describing the major grounds for reconsideration). Rule 59(e)
may not be used, however, to “relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present
evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” ING Global, 757
F.3d at 97 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Many of the assertions in Plaintiffs’ most recent filings have little or no
discernable connection to their claims in this case.2 Importantly, nothing in their filings
addresses their claim against Ms. Stark or alters the Court’s prior conclusion that they
have failed to state a claim against her. And as discussed below, Plaintiffs’ most recent
filings also do not alter the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with
their discovery obligations and with this Court’s orders regarding discovery.
2
For instance, Plaintiffs make allegations that the Vermont Department of Children and Families
have “kidnap[ed]” and “export[ed]” Edward Gauthier’s daughter, thereby committing treason against
“another government.” (Doc. 103 at 4.) Their filings include other references to their alleged status as
“sovereign citizens” (e.g., Doc. 105 at 4)—an ideology that this Court has previously rejected (see Doc.
60 at 34 n.18). Plaintiffs have also supplied citations to a variety of what appear to be Washington State
statutory provisions relating to the misconduct of public officials, presumably because they believe that
Officers Kirkpatrick and Ross have engaged in misconduct. (Doc. 105 at 1–5.)
3
Plaintiffs assert that they have “5 years[’] worth of paperwork” and that they have
filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the jail. (Doc. 103 at 1.) They
also say that they have “audio evidence” from YouTube (id. at 2), and a “Times Argus[]
clipping” (id. at 3). Finally, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants Kirkpatrick and Ross or
others have concealed documents related to this case. (See Doc. 103 at 2 (alleging the
“hid[]ing of jail documents and court documents”); Doc. 105 at 2 (“Kirkpatrick and Ross
knowingly con[c]ealed pap[]erwork of this case . . . .”).)
Plaintiffs do not point to any error of law or to any intervening change in
controlling law that might warrant Rule 59(e) relief. It is unclear precisely how the
materials to which Plaintiffs refer might relate to their claims in this case, and in
particular their claims against Ms. Stark and Officers Kirkpatrick and Ross. More
importantly, Plaintiffs do not explain why they failed to provide discovery to Defendants
after repeated requests from counsel and orders from the Court. Nothing in Plaintiffs’
most recent filings indicates that they have remedied their failure to file Initial
Disclosures or to respond to Ross and Kirkpatrick’s First Set of Interrogatories and
Requests to Produce. Even assuming that documents have been wrongfully withheld
from Plaintiffs, they still had an obligation to comply with their discovery obligations as
fully as they were able. The Court concludes that there is no basis for Rule 59(e) relief.
II.
Motion for Appointment of Counsel
Because the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e) Motion, the Court also denies
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 104) as moot.
4
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the Court interprets Plaintiffs’ most recent filings (Docs.
103, 105) as a Rule 59(e) Motion, and DENIES that Motion. The Court also DENIES
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 104) as moot.
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this 26th day of September, 2014.
/s/ John M. Conroy
.
John M. Conroy
United States Magistrate Judge
5
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?