Tully v. Supreme Court of Virginia et al

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 10/2/2015. (sbea, )

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

THOMAS M. TULLY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:14CV202

v.

SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA, et ai.
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on April 15, 2015, the Court dismissed
Thomas M. Tully's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. On May 4, 2015, the Court received from Tully a
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). ("Rule
59(e) Motion," ECF No. 42). For the reasons stated below, the Rule 59(e) Motion will be
DENIED.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized three grounds
for relief under 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 LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990)). Tully's mere disagreement

with the Court's ruling fails to warrant Rule 59(e) relief, and he may not use Rule 59(e) to rehash
arguments previously presented or to submit evidence that should have been previously
submitted. Id. at 1082.

Tully claims that he "now addresses" the Memorandum Opinion dismissing his case "so
that the court will reconsider granting relief." (Rule 59(e) Mot. 1.) Tully then provides a lengthy
narrative of his criminal and related civil proceedings in state court detailing how each defendant
somehow wronged him. Instead of providing argument to support a Rule 59(e) motion, Tully

expands upon his arguments in his Complaint and attempts to bring four new legal claims that he
did not raise previously. Tully also provides vague arguments protesting the Court's conclusion

that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) bars his claim.' Tully fails to demonstrate a clear
error of law or any other ground for Rule 59(e) relief. Moreover, it is clear that Tully's claims
remain legally frivolous. Accordingly, Tully's Rule 59(e) Motion will be DENIED.

On July 6, 2015, Tully also filed a Motion to Amend his Rule 59(e) Motion. ("First
Motion to Amend," ECF No. 46.) In the First Motion to Amend, Tully attempts to add new

argument to a claim he raised in his § 1983 action that certain Defendants "denied [Tully] equal
access to the courts and equal protection of the law." (First Mot. Amend 1.) Tully provides no
argument detailing why the Court should grant his First Motion to Amend or a Rule 59(e)
Motion. Because Tully merely rehashes his claim that was previously dismissed, the First
Motion to Amend (ECF No. 46) will DENIED AS FUTILE.

On September 4, 2015, the Court received yet another Motion to Amend his Rule 59(e)
Motion wherein Tully seeks to add two new defendants and new claims to the action. ("Second
Motion to Amend," ECF No. 50.) Once again, Tully provides no argument explaining why the

' Tully argues that his claims should not be barred by Heck because "[i]n no event will a
judgment (from this court) that simply orders state courts to allow Tully to present his claims to
the court 'necessarily impl[y] the unlawfulness of the State's custody.' The state court itself
would have
(Rule 59(e)
in his Rule
convictions

to make that determination after a full review on the merits of the claims presented."
Mot. 14 (alteration in original).) Reviewing his Complaint and the expanded claims
59(e) Motion, Tully clearly demonstrates his intention to "obtain reversal of his
and/or to pardon or reduction of his sentence." (Compl. ^ 27.) Tully demonstrates

no error of law in the Court's dismissal of his claims.

Court should grant the Second Motion to Amend or the Rule 59(e) Motion. Tully's Second
Motion to Amend (ECF No. 50) will be DENIED AS FUTILE. Tully's Motion for an Order of

Response from Defendants (ECF No. 49) will be DENIED. A certificate of appealability will be
DENIED.

An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

John A. Gibney/Irj,
Date:

Richmond, Virginia

United States District Judge