Williams v. Eason et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 04/30/2014. (tjoh, )

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

GARY B.WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:13CV493-HEH

CARL EASON, era/.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Denying Rule 59(e) Motion)

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

filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.1 In his § 1983 action, Williams sued the state judge
who presided over his criminal trial and Williams's defense counsel. By Memorandum
Opinion and Order entered on March 4, 2014, the Court dismissed the action. On March
21, 2014, the Court received from Williams a motion seeking relief under Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. (ECF No. 12.) Because Williams filed his request for

reconsideration within the twenty-eight-day time limit for motions under Fed. R. Civ. P.

1The statute provides, in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute ... of any State ... subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law....

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

59(e), the Court treats the motion as one under Rule 59(e). Dove v. CODESCO, 569
F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized three

grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): "(0 t0 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., Ill F. Supp. 1406,
1419 (D. Md. 1991); Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D.

Miss. 1990)).2 Williams fails to demonstrate that the Court committed a clear error of
law in dismissing the present action. Nor does Williams demonstrate any other basis for

granting Rule 59(e) relief. Accordingly, Williams's Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 12)
will be DENIED.

An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

.

Date: Ap*l\36ZolV

HENRY E. HUDSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Richmond, Virginia

2SeePac. 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
(2ded. 1995))).