Miller v. Gorman
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER that Mr. Miller's Second Emergency Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 22) is DENIED (see Order for details). Signed by District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles on 12/11/2023. (Sbro)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
DAVID AUGUSTUS MILLER,III,
Appellant^
Civil Action No. l:22-cv-901 (PTG/IDD)
V.
(Bankruptcy Case No. 21-11835)
THOMAS GORMAN,
Appellee,
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Debtor-Appellant David Augustus Miller, Ill's
Second Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's order dismissing his appeal from
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Brian F. Kenney's July 22, 2022 Order. Dkt. 22. For the following
reasons, the Court will deny the Second Emergency Motion for Reconsideration.
I.
BACKGROUND
The Court has already described the history of this matter at length in prior orders. See
Dkt. 21 at 1-2.
IL
DISCUSSION
Although it is not entirely clear, Mr. Miller appears to identify Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e)' as the legal standard under which he brings his Motion for Reconsideration. See
Dkt. 22 at 2. As Mr. Miller is proceeding pro se,the Court thus construes his Motion as a request
for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Davis v. Fortune Inv.
'Mr. Miller specifically identifies "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)(3)" as the proper legal
standard under which he brings his second Motion for Reconsideration. See Dkt. 22 at 2. Because
Rule 59(e)(3) does not exist, the Court assumes Mr. Miller intended to identify Rule 59(e).
Enters., Nos. 3:20-cv-78, 3:20-cv-79, 2020 WL 3052862, at *2 (E.D. Va. June 8, 2020). Mr.
Miller's instant Motion does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 59(e).
The Fourth Circuit has recognized three situations in which it is appropriate to amend an
earlierjudgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e):"(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 oflaw or prevent manifest injustice." Ingle v. Yelton,439 F.3d 191,197(4th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,403(4th Cir. 1998)).
Mr. Miller first rehashes the argument he previously made in the first Motion for
Reconsideration, that "Appellee[, Mr. Gorman, the trustee,] without any cause shown filed his
brief after it was due, thereby "ignorpng] the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure[.]" Dkt. 22
at 1-2. The Court already addressed this argument in its prior Order,see Dkt. 21 at 4, and will not
do so again.
Mr. Miller also argues that Mr. Gorman "misrepresented the facts" as to his Chapter 13
bankruptcy and denies that he filed his bankruptcy based on the dispute with Tyson's Watch and
Jewelry. See Dkt.22 at 2. Mr. Miller claims that this "intentional misrepresentation" has deprived
him of"receiving his due process[.]" Id. Lastly, Mr. Miller argues that Mr. Gorman "failed to
collect any property of the estate" during the pendency of the case and that any funds received
"should be sanctioned." Id. at 3. These arguments fail to identify any factual or legal errors that
require correction,a change in the controlling law,or new evidence. Indeed, all ofthese arguments
could have been made on February 24,2022,the day on which the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing
on the Objections to Confirmation of Mr. Miller's Bankruptcy Plan. See Dkt. 21 at 1 (citing
Dkts. 2-1 at 5, 2-2 at 1:6-12). These arguments do not "account for new evidence" nor do they
point to "a clear error oflaw[,]" Ingle,439 F.3d at 197, and thus, this Court is unable to reconsider
its earlier Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Mr. Miller's Second Emergency Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 22)is
DENIED.
Dated: December II ,2023
Alexandria, Virginia
^Patricia Tolliver Giles
United States District 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?