Chittum v. Dixon et al
Filing
37
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 2/6/15. Copy sent: Yes (tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
MARK CHITTUM,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:14CV272-HEH
v.
DR. DIXON, etal,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Denying Rule 59(e) Motion)
Plaintiff Mark Chittum, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed
this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.1 By Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF Nos. 32, 33) entered
on November 7,2014, the Court dismissed Chittum's action without prejudice for failing to
comply with the Court's directives.2 On November 25, 2014, the Court received a letter from
Chittum requesting that the Court "change the dismissed action [and] allow [him] to continue
[his] case." (Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 35, at 1.) Because Chittum filed his request for
reconsideration within the twenty-eight day time limit for motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e),
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.
2By Memorandum Order entered October 16, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs motion to
postpone the action, and directed that Plaintiff, within fourteen (14) days ofthe date of entry thereof, file
a response to the Memorandum Order indicating his clear intent to proceed with this action. The Court
warned that failure to comply with the directive would result in dismissal of the action. As more than
fourteen (14) days passed without Plaintiff complying with the Court's directive, the Court dismissed the
action without prejudice.
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 underRule 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
manifestinjustice." 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)).3 Chittum fails to
demonstrate that the Court committed a clearerrorof law in dismissing the present action.
Ratherthan presenting grounds for relief underRule 59(e), Chittum merelyargues that he now
requires legal representation because his previous "representative," another inmate, was "shipped
out." (Mot. for Reconsideration at 1.) Chittum also explains that he needs "helppaying the
filing fee." (Id.) Chittum presents no basis for granting Rule 59(e) relief. Accordingly,
Chittum's Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 35) will be DENIED.
The Courtnotes that Chittum's case was dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, if
Chittum wishes to pursue this action he may file a new complaint with the Court.
An appropriate Order will accompanythis Memorandum Opinion.
^
Date:Vig.WAigflfy
w
/s/
Henry E. Hudson
United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
3See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat 7Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,403 (4th Cir. 1998) (noting that a
"'Rule 59(e) motion may notbe used to relitigate old matters, orto 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 andProcedure § 2810.1, at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995))).
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?