Yarid v. Brennan

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. READ FOR DETAILS. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 9/3/2015. (ccol, )

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

GEORGE YARID,

Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Action No. 3:15cv326

SHON BRENNAN,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff George Yarid's Motion for

Reconsideration. (ECF No. 14.) Yarid moves the Court to reconsider its August 4,2015
Memorandum Order dismissing his action for failure to comply with the Court's July 10,2015

Order granting him leave to file an amended complaint by July 24, 2015. The Courtwill
construe Yarid's Motion for Reconsideration as a Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment

pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 59(e).' For the reasons that follow, the Court denies
Yarid's Motion.
I. Procedural History

On June 10, 2015, the Court granted Yarid leave to proceed in forma pauperis; found that

Yarid failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and, dismissed his complaint

' That rule states: "(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or
amend a judgment must be filed no laterthan 28 days afterthe entry of the judgment." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e).

without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C, §1915(e)(2).^ {See ECF Nos. 2, 3.) The Court granted
Yarid an opportunity to file an amended complaint, provided he did so within 14 days ofthe

entry ofthe Memorandum Opinion and Order. (June 10, 2015 O. 1, ECF No. 3.) The Court
warned Yarid that failure to comply with the Court's directives would result in dismissal ofthis

action. {Id.) On June 29, 2015, after Yarid failed to file an amended complaint within the
constraints ofthe June 10, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court dismissed Yarid's

action without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (b).^ {See ECF Nos. 5, 6.)
AfterYarid filed a Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 7), the Court foundthat the
circumstances warranted one additional opportunity for Yarid to attemptto cure his errors.

(July 10, 2015 Mem. O., ECF No. 8.) The Court granted Yarid 14 more days to file an amended
complaint that complied with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules ofthe
Eastern District ofVirginia, and the Court's orders. {Id, at4.) The Court warned Yarid that

"[a]ny further requests for extensions oftime will be looked upon with disfavor." {Id. (citing
^The statute reads, in pertinent part:

Notwithstanding any filing fee, orany portion thereof, that may have been paid,
the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the courtdetermines that: (A)the

allegation ofpoverty is untrue; or(B) the action orappeal (i) is fiivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

^Therule states, in pertinent part:

(b) Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. Ifthe plaintiff fails to prosecute orto comply
with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or

any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal
under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule-except one for

lack ofjurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19operates as an adjudication on the merits.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 7(1)).) Seventeen days following the Court's Order, Yarid filed a"Motion

for Case to Proceed." (ECF No. 10.) The Court found that Yarid again failed to comply with the
Local Civil Rules for the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofVirginia, and

denied the Motion. (Aug. 4,2015 Mem. 0.2, ECF No. 11.) To the extent the Motion could
have been construed as an amended complaint, the Court foimd that the filing failed to comply
with the Court's July 10, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order. (Id.) Therefore, the Court
dismissed the action without prejudice. {Id.)

II. Standai-H nf Review: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)

The Court treats Yarid's Motion for Reconsideration as a Motion to Alter or Amend a

Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 59(e), because he filed his motion on

August 18,2015, within 28 days ofthe Court's August 4,2015 Final Memorandum Order. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e).

"[R]econsideration of ajudgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should
be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nal'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,403 (4th Cir. 1998)

(quoting Wright et al, Federal Practice and Procedure §2810.1, at 124 (2d ed. 1995)).
Rule 59(e) itselfprovides no standard by which adistrict court may grant amotion to alter or
amend ajudgment, but "courts interpreting Rule 59(e) have recognized three grounds for
amending an earlier judgment: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law,

(2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct aclear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinsonv. Staton, 99AF.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). Such
motions may not be used, however, "to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to the
issuance ofthe judgment, nor may they be used to argue acase under anovel legal theory that

the party had the ability to address in the first instance." Pac. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403.

Moreover, "[a] party's mere disagreement with the court's ruling does not warrant aRule 59(e)
motion...Smith v. Donahoe, 917 F. Supp. 2d 562, 572 (E.D. Va. 2013) (citing Pac. Ins. Co.,

148 F.3d at 403). Indeed, Rule 59(e) does not "give an unhappy litigant one additional chance to

sway the judge." Durkin v. Taylor, 444 F. Supp. 879, 889 (E.D. Va. 1977) (stating that

plaintiffs briefin support ofhis motion to alter or amend the judgment was "no more than an
expression ofaview of the law contrary to that set forth in the Court's opinion," and thus the
court had no proper basis to alter oramend its previous order).
111. Analysis

The Court sees no basis to vacate its prior order or to grant Yarid another opportunity to

file an amended complaint. Alteration ofthis Court's judgment would be an "extraordinary

remedy" not warranted here. Pac. Ins. Co.^ 148 F.3d at 403. Yarid sMotion, like his last
Motion for Reconsideration, does not speak to the Rule 59(e) standard. First, Yarid cites no

change in the intervening law requiring accommodation. Second, he raises no new evidence or
any clear errors of law. Third, Yarid fails to argue that any manifest injustice exists. See
Hutchinson, 994 F.2d at 1081.

At most, Yarid's Motion for Reconsideration reiterates the argument in his last Motion
for Reconsideration that "the original document didn't come in the mail until the 13th ofthe 14

days given." (Mot. Reconsideration 1.) The Court has already heard this argument and provided
Yarid with asecond opportunity to cure his errors. Yarid failed to do so. Although Yarid'spro
se status makes him "entitled to some deference," itdoes not relieve him ofhis duty to abide by
the rules and orders ofthis Court. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1989). The

Court has now granted Yarid two chances to file an appropriate complaint beyond his first

attempt (ECF Nos. 2-3, 8-9), but Yarid consistently fails to comply with the Court's orders.

Yarid's Motion for Reconsideration does not satisfy any ofthe Hutchinson factors. 994 F.2d

at 1081. Accordingly, the Court denies Yarid's Motion for Reconsideration.
IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Yarid's Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF
No. 14.)

An appropriate Order will follow.
M. Hannah

United States DistAcfJVidge
Richmond, Virginia
Date: