Davis v. Ruby et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 5/7/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

WILLIE UNIQUE DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 3:12CV624

DOCTOR RUBY, etal,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Willie Unique Davis, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil action. By
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on January 18, 2013, this Court dismissed the action
without prejudice because Davis failed to return a consent to collection of fees form and did not

pay the statutory filing fee within the time required by the Memorandum Order entered
September 20,2012.

On January 31, 2013, the Court received from Davis a letter that the Court construes as a

motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e) ("Rule 59(e) Motion") (ECF No. 11). Davis

challenges the Court's January 18, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order, returns a completed
consent to collection of fees form, and asks the Court to reopen the case.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized three grounds
for reliefunder Rule 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 of law or prevent

manifest injustice."

Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing

Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., 771 F. Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991); Atkins v.
Marathon LeToumeau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990)). Davis states that he "did

not know I had to fill these out [and] send it back in to the court." (Rule 59(e) Mot. 1.) Davis
fails to demonstrate that the Court committed a clear error of law or that reopening the case

would prevent manifest injustice. Nor does Davis demonstrate any other basis for granting Rule

59(e) relief.1 Accordingly, Davis's Rule 59(e) Motion will be denied. The Court will direct the
Clerk to refile Davis's complaint as a new civil action as of the date of entry hereof.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: *P/^

Richmond, Virginia

/s/

W

John A. Gibney,

United States District Judge
istrict Juc

1See Pac. Ins, Co. v. Am. Nat'I Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (noting
that a "'Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or
present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry ofjudgment'" (quoting 11 Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 127-28 (2d ed.
1995))).