Liton v. Ramos et al
Filing
1
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 6/17/15. Copy sent: Yes (tdai, ) Modified file date on 6/19/2015 (tdai, ).
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, et aL,
New Civil Action No. 3:15CV368
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro 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 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)). 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:
Richmond, Virginia
Is!
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 of judgment'" (quoting 11 Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure ยง 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?