Liton v. Ramos et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 6/17/2015. Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff. (jsmi, )

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

MOHAMMED ALI LITON,
Plaintiff,

V.

Civil Action No. 3:15CV68

MR. RAMOS, etaL,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceedingpro se, filed this civil action. By Memorandum
Opinion and Order entered on May 13,2015, this Court dismissed the action without prejudice
because Plaintiff 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 on March 16, 2015.
On June 12,2015, the Court received from Plaintiff 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. 10).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuithas recognized three grounds
for relief under Rule 59(e): "(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controllinglaw; (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. \99\y, Atkins v.
Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990)). Plaintiff states: "I think I
followed the direction that the Court sent me attached and highlighted area

I thought if I

can't pay why I need sign for payment arrangement. And that's why I filed for in forma
pauperis." (Rule 59(e) Mot. 1 (capitalization corrected)). Plaintiff requests that he be allowed to

send in the consent to collection of fees form or resubmit his Complaint. Plaintiff fails to
demonstrate that the Court committed a clear error of law or that reopening the case would
prevent manifest injustice. Nor does Plaintiff demonstrate any other basis for granting Rule

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

Date: (>~l'7-/f
Richmond, Virginia

/S/

James R. Spencer
Senior U. S. District Judge

^See 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))).