Williams v. Clarke

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 06/20/2014. Copies mailed 6/20/2014.(tjoh, )

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

E

JUN 2 0 2014

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA!
Richmond Division

L

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND, VA

GARY B.WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:13CV276-HEH

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Denying Motion for Recusal and for Reconsideration)

Gary B. Williams, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis,

filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Williams has filed a Motion for Recusal (ECF

No. 24) of the undersigned citing a series of unfavorable rulings in Williams's prior
actions to demonstrate the Court's purported partiality and bias. The Court harbors no

bias against Petitioner nor does he demonstrate any circumstances where the impartiality

of the undersigned might be reasonably questioned. See 28 U.S.C. § 455. * Williams's
Motion for Recusal (ECF No. 24) will be denied.

The statute provides, in relevant part

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding ....
28 U.S.C. §455.

B

By Memorandum Order entered on March 25, 2014, the Court denied Williams's
"Motion For A[n] Order For The Production of Specific State Court Records." (ECF
No. 23.) Williams sought state court records from unrelated actions that were

unnecessary for the resolution of the instant action. Williams now seeks reconsideration

of that Memorandum Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).2 (ECF No. 27.)
The power to grant relief under Rule 54(b) "is committed to the discretion of the district
court." Am. Canoe Ass'n v. MurphyFarms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 515 (4th Cir. 2003)

(citingMosesH. Cone Mem'lHosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 12 (1983)).

Granting a motion for reconsideration generally should be limited to instances such as the
following:

[T]he Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision
outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has
made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension .... [or] a controlling
or significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the issue to
the Court [has occurred]. Such problems rarely arise and the motion to
reconsider should be equally rare.
Above the Belt, Inc. v. MelBohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983);

accord United States v. SmithfieIdFoods, Inc., 969 F. Supp. 975, 977 (E.D. Va. 1997);

2While Williams labels his motion as one brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) or 60(b), his motion is properly brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
The rule states in relevant part:
[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all
the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the
action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the
entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and
liabilities.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

see Tully v. Tolley, 63 F. App'x 108, 113 (4th Cir. 2003) (concluding district court

properly denied Rule 54(b) motion where new evidence could have been discovered with
due diligence). Reconsideration is also appropriate when '"the prior decision was clearly
erroneous and would work manifest injustice.'" Am. Canoe Ass'n, 326 F.3d at 515

(quoting Sejman v. Warner-Lambert Co., 845 F.2d 66, 69 (4th Cir. 1988)). The courts do
not entertain motions to reconsider which ask the Court merely to "rethink what the Court

had already thought through—rightly or wrongly." Above the Belt, Inc., 99 F.R.D. at
101. Williams fails to satisfy the relevant criteria for reconsideration. He fails to
demonstrate that the Court's prior decision was made in error, would cause manifest

injustice, or any other reason to grant relief. Thus, his Motion for Reconsideration (ECF
No. 27) will be denied.

An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

M*

is/

HENRY E. HUDSON

Date: ~3ti*\<.2.QZOi<!i
Richmond, Virginia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE