Jarvis v. The City of Alexandria Mayor's Office et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 06/28/2017. (c/s to Plaintiff)(jlan)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
DEREK N. JARVIS,
THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA,
M E M O R A N D U M
O P I N I O N
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Derek N.
Jarvis’ Motion to Reconsider a June 12, 2017 Order dismissing his
case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
For the following reasons, the Court will deny the
This case was brought by pro se Plaintiff Derek N. Jarvis
(“Plaintiff” or “Jarvis”) against the Alexandria Mayor’s Office, City
Council, and City Manager (collectively, the “Defendants”) for
alleged violations of his constitutional rights, negligence, and
Compl. [Dkt. 1] at 1-3.
On an unspecified date, Plaintiff
visited an unspecified Shell gas station located in the Old Town
neighborhood of Alexandria, Virginia.
Compl. at 1.
While paying for
gas, Plaintiff alleges that a Middle Eastern employee referred to him
by using a racial slur and yelled at him in front of other patrons.
On or about August 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint
with the Office of Human Rights (“OHR”) in Alexandria, alleging
racial discrimination by the Shell gas station employee.
Plaintiff claims that OHR’s investigation of his complaint lasted
approximately two weeks.
After failing to properly investigate
his claim, Plaintiff alleges that the director of OHR, Jean Kelleher,
informed him that the incident at the gas station did not amount to
As a result, OHR dismissed his
Following this dismissal, Plaintiff proceeded to
contact the City Manager, the Mayor’s Office, and the City Attorney
for assistance, but found their help unavailing.
On June 12, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion
granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under
Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Mem. Op. [Dkt. 16] at
The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Section 1981 claim because his
Complaint only included allegations against state actors.
Id. at 8.
As noted in the Court’s opinion, Section 1983 provides the exclusive
federal damages remedy for alleged violations of Section 1981 by
Additionally, the Court found that Plaintiff
failed to plead sufficient facts under Section 1983 to support his
claim that OHR has an official custom or policy of siding with
respondents in cases involving racial discrimination.
Id. at 8-9.
The Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s negligence claim under the
doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Id. at 9-10.
Finally, the Court
found that Plaintiff’s fraud claim failed to include specific factual
allegations that the alleged misrepresentation was made intentionally
and knowingly, with the purpose of misleading him; that he
subsequently relied upon that misrepresentation; and that, as a
result, he suffered damages.
Id. at 10-11.
On June 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration and motion to vacate the Court’s June 12 Order.
for Reconsideration [Dkt. 18].
This motion argues that the Court’s
prior Order is “flawed, fabricated[,] and illegal” and accuses the
Court of treason and obstruction of justice, among other things.
Defendants filed their memorandum in opposition to this
motion, [Dkt. 21], to which Plaintiff replied, [Dkt. 26].
been fully briefed on the matter, this motion is now ripe for
II. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) governs this motion
A court may amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) in the
following three 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 prevent
Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th
Amending a judgment “is an extraordinary remedy that
should be applied sparingly.”
369, 379 (4th Cir. 2012).
Mayfield v. NASCAR, Inc., 674 F.3d
A reconsideration motion “is inappropriate
if it asks the court to ‘reevaluate the basis upon which it made a
prior ruling’ or ‘merely seeks to reargue a previous claim.’”
Projects Mgmt. Co. v. DynCorp Int’l, LLC, 17 F. Supp. 3d 539, 541
(E.D. Va. 2014) (quoting United States v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 969
F. Supp. 975, 977 (E.D. Va. 1997)).
Plaintiff asserts that this Court’s prior Memorandum
Opinion lacked “any justification or legal basis in federal law.”
Mot. for Reconsideration at 1.
He contends that sovereign immunity
“cannot be found in the constitution, not [sic] can it be applied to
Id. at 3.
Plaintiff also argues that all of his claims were
sufficiently pled, as he established that Defendants engaged in fraud
by misrepresenting the elements of a Section 1981 claim to him, as
well as that Defendants violated OHR’s policy of gathering data, such
as affidavits, during the course of investigating a human rights
Id. at 4.
In an effort to convince the Court to adopt
his reasoning, Plaintiff also threatens to “file a criminal case
under RICO” against the Eastern District of Virginia, and accuses the
Court of both obstruction of justice and treason.
Id. at 1-2.
Finally, Plaintiff asserts, without any evidence whatsoever, that
this Court somehow colluded with the District of Maryland before
deciding to dismiss his Complaint.
Id. at 2.
views these perceived errors as a manifest injustice.
Having reviewed each of Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court
finds no reason to reconsider its prior opinion.
Plaintiff has made
no showing that a manifest injustice has indeed occurred.
the gravamen of his motion to reconsider is that all of his claims
are meritorious and were sufficiently pled in his Complaint to
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
In other words, Plaintiff
simply disagrees with this Court’s prior ruling.
noted in the June 12 Order that Plaintiff now seeks to vacate, the
proper avenue for contesting this Court’s dismissal is to appeal the
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
by filing a notice of appeal within 60 days.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that
reconsideration is not warranted.
Therefore, the Court will deny
An appropriate order will issue.
June 28, 2017
James C. Cacheris
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
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?